ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Staff

Julie Hilling: How many NHS staff have been made redundant and subsequently re-employed by the NHS since May 2010.

Graeme Morrice: How many NHS staff have been made redundant and subsequently re-employed by the NHS since May 2010.

Daniel Poulter: Over the four and a half years between May 2010 and October 2014, 5,210 people—equivalent to, annually, less than 0.1% of the NHS work force—have been made redundant and then returned to work elsewhere in the NHS.

Julie Hilling: But at a time when A and E is in crisis and there are not enough nurses, how on earth can the Minister possibly justify firing and rehiring thousands of NHS staff? What greater sign could there be of a Government with their priorities totally wrong?

Daniel Poulter: I am not sure I recognise that picture of the NHS. We know that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 extra nurses, midwives and health visitors working in our NHS than there were under the previous Government. Also, in respect of A and E, the average length of stay in hospital has steadily come down from about eight days in 2000 to about five days now. So our NHS is getting better and improving under the current Government.

Graeme Morrice: Last year the Prime Minister promised to recover redundancy payments from people who have been rehired. Can the Minister tell us how many payments have been recovered and at what cost?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the previous Labour Government who in 2006 set these eye-watering redundancy payments for the NHS, and we have committed to making sure we reform and change that. Therefore, as part of our negotiations and pay offer to NHS staff we want to introduce a redundancy
	cap of £80,000. Since many Opposition Members are supported by trade unions, I hope they will encourage union members to back that pay and redundancy cap.

Andrew Stephenson: Can the Minister confirm that according to the latest figures there are more nurses working in the NHS now than there were in 2010, including an additional 391 at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and an additional 59 at Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, the two trusts that serve my constituency?

Daniel Poulter: I am delighted to confirm that, and we have made a conscious decision to reduce NHS waste and bureaucracy. NHS administration spending is down from 4.27% under the previous Government to only 2.77% now, which has resulted in £5 billion of efficiency savings and meant we can invest in about 6,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors.

Maria Miller: The extra NHS staff my hon. Friend talks about are welcome, but my constituents want to know that standards of care are the best as well. What progress is he making to ensure that hospital patients get the best possible care?

Daniel Poulter: The most important thing we have done is support our front-line staff with additional investment in the NHS, which Labour called irresponsible, and there is about £13 billion more going into the NHS during this Parliament. We have also increased transparency to make sure that where there are isolated pockets of poor care, the Care Quality Commission can intervene and make recommendations to improve the quality of care for patients in those hospitals.

Nicholas Dakin: Given the significant challenges facing the NHS and the fact that this top-down reorganisation has led to this hiring and firing and therefore a distraction of energy and attention at crucial times, do not the Government now regret their top-down reorganisation?

Daniel Poulter: A reorganisation of NHS services that results in administration spending being reduced from 4.27% under the previous Government to 2.77% under this Government, meaning that there is £5 billion more money for front-line patient care, is a good thing. That is something the Opposition should support, because it means that patients are getting a better service.

Andrew Bridgen: Can the Minister remind the House of the number of extra specialist A and E doctors working in the NHS in England now compared with 2010?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to raise this important point. As part of our commitment to investing more money in the front line, we have been able to ensure that there are between 800 and 1,000 more doctors now working in A and E than under the Labour Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the House that the question is not about staff per se in the NHS?
	The question is about people made redundant and subsequently re-employed. Attention to detail tends to profit a Member.

Meg Hillier: Those of us on the Public Accounts Committee have heard about the industrial scale of this revolving door of people going out of one job and into another with a fat redundancy payment. Does this not show that the Government have lost their grip on what is truly important in the NHS, which is paying front-line clinicians to serve patients?

Daniel Poulter: That is extraordinary. The Public Accounts Committee will be aware that these redundancy terms were introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2006. We are committed to changing them and I hope that the hon. Lady’s party will support us in exerting pressure on the unions to support the pay deals on the table that will introduce an £80,000 redundancy cap.

Mr Speaker: Ms Johnson, do you have a similar question?

Diana Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker; I am grateful. I want to ask about the number of nurses who have been made redundant. Lots of hospitals in my area are now recruiting from Spain, and I wonder whether an assessment has been made of the cost to the NHS of using nurses from abroad after making other nurses redundant.

Daniel Poulter: Our NHS has always benefited from overseas staff bringing their skills and coming to work here, and we can all welcome that as long as they have a good standard of spoken English, which is something that we are putting right through the legislation that we are introducing. As I outlined earlier, there are now around 7,500 more nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the NHS than there were under the previous Government.

GP Retirement

Douglas Carswell: What contingency plans his Department has formulated to cope with the expected increase in the number of GPs retiring before 2020.

Daniel Poulter: In addition to the extra 1,000 GPs working in our NHS since 2010, our mandate to Health Education England will ensure that 50% of trainee doctors enter GP training programmes by 2016. This will enable the delivery of 5,000 additional newly qualified GPs by 2020.

Douglas Carswell: I am told that many young doctors are choosing not to go into general practice. That, coupled with the number of retiring GPs, is leading to real shortages in places such as Clacton. What more can be done to make general practice more attractive to young doctors, in order to offset the number of GPs who are retiring?

Daniel Poulter: There have always been parts of our health service where it has been difficult to attract GPs to work; that is a long-standing problem. A new £10 million investment fund has been put in place, and a new 10-point plan is being delivered by NHS England to look at how we can better incentivise younger doctors to work in areas in which it has traditionally been difficult to recruit. I am sure that that will bring benefits to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere in the NHS.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just a matter of the total number of GPs? Quite a lot of GPs now want to work part time, and quite a lot now want to be salaried rather than being partners. Is he confident that the model that was set up in 1948, which effectively means that each GP practice is its own separate, private business, is still suitable in the 21st century?

Daniel Poulter: My right hon. Friend asks an important question. We can of course support the existing model, and the innovation that comes with GPs being small businesses, and that is exactly what we are doing with the £1 billion investment fund for GP infrastructure and technology. We are supporting those GPs as small businesses to develop better patient services.

Valerie Vaz: On what is his last outing, will the Minister tell us how many GPs, in addition to those who have retired, have left the profession and how many have gone to work abroad?

Daniel Poulter: It has always been the case—it was certainly the case among many of my medical contemporaries—that many people from our NHS go and work overseas for some time. They often come back to the NHS, bringing broader experience and skills. As I outlined earlier, there are now 1,000 more GPs working and training in our NHS than there were five years ago.

Philip Hollobone: Following the retirement of a senior partner whom it has been impossible to replace, Dr Hadrian Moss of the Dryland GP surgery in Kettering has followed the advice of the British Medical Association and informally closed his expanded list of 2,500 patients on the ground of patient safety. He has now been taken to task by NHS England for a potential breach of contract. What is the Minister’s opinion on reconciling the views of the BMA on patient safety guidelines and those of NHS England on a potential breach of contract?

Daniel Poulter: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it is difficult for me to comment on an individual case, but I am very happy to look into the matter and get back to him about it.

Margaret Ritchie: Given that the needs of patients must come first and that young people are not choosing to pursue GP training as much as they used to, what discussions will the Secretary of State hold directly with the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges, the training councils and his colleagues in the devolved Administrations throughout the UK to address this issue, to prevent further congestion in accident and emergency departments?

Daniel Poulter: There is a lot of work going on in this area. First, we are encouraging and supporting GPs who have had career breaks, perhaps because they have started a family, to get back into the profession more easily than they have been able to do in the past. Secondly, we also have the commitment that 50% of medical students and doctors leaving foundation training will become GPs in future. That will make sure that we have 5,000 more GPs by 2020.

Andrew Gwynne: But the Government’s reorganisation took billions of pounds away from the NHS front line. Figures released last week show that fewer than a quarter of medical students now enter general practice, because they can see the pressure that Ministers have put on it, while GP morale has collapsed. Should the Minister not now admit that the reorganisation was a mistake and instead match Labour’s pledge to invest an extra £2.5 billion a year to recruit 8,000 more GPs and guarantee appointments within 48 hours?

Daniel Poulter: I know that the Labour party is full of professional politicians, but medical students do not just leave medical school and straight away become GPs; they become foundation doctors. As I have outlined, 50% of the people leaving their foundation training will become GPs in future, which will increase the number of GPs by 5,000. Under this Government the number of GPs in education, training and working in the NHS has increased by 1,000, which is a move in the right direction.

Countess of Chester Hospital (Scans)

Stephen Mosley: How many CT scans were performed at the Countess of Chester hospital in (a) 2010 and (b) 2014.

George Freeman: I am delighted to report to the House that the number of CT scans performed at the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust increased by 67% between 2010 and 2014. In December 2014, only 0.6% of patients waited more than six weeks from referral to test at the trust—that is rather better than the figure we inherited in 2010 of 4.9%, and I hope that the Opposition will welcome it.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome those fantastic figures at the Countess of Chester hospital. Will the Minister confirm that early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for dealing with many conditions, and that we are seeing the results of that in improved survival rates for conditions such as cancer?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that diagnostics play a key role in our drive to improve cancer survival, which is why we have committed £750 million to deliver our cancer strategy, including £450 million to achieve better diagnosis of cancer, and better awareness and access to diagnostic tests. Projections show that that is working; we are on track to see 12,000 more cancer patients a year surviving for at least five years in 2015, which is more than double the target of 5,000 we set ourselves in January 2011. I hope that the Labour party will agree that these are real benefits for cancer patients in the NHS today.

Jamie Reed: Cancer scanning services in Cheshire and Staffordshire have recently been subjected to a competitive tendering process, and the contract was awarded to Alliance Medical, despite its bid being £7 million more expensive than the NHS bid. Can the Secretary of State explain why the more expensive private sector bid was chosen over the better value NHS bid to provide these services? Will he commit to investigating the bidding process to ensure that the tender was conducted fairly? [Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position, but will he today confirm, because this is a matter of profound public interest, that no contact of any sort took place between his Department and the board of Alliance Medical with regard to this decision, including at any point with the current board member, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)?

Mr Speaker: Order. That was a considerable essay to which a pithy but comprehensive response is expected. The House seeks it.

George Freeman: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s chutzpah but it ill behoves him to talk to us about privatisation; it was his party that led to the increases and it is this Government who have stopped it, and he needs to acknowledge that. On the facts, in December the NHS in England performed more than 130,000 more diagnostic tests compared with December 2013. I note that he did not talk about Wales, where 24% of patients have waited more than eight weeks for their diagnostic test—the comparative figure is 2% of patients in England.

Mr Speaker: Order. The question was about Chester, so there was no particular reason to talk about Wales.

Cancer Survival

Paul Uppal: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recent rates of cancer survival.

Mark Menzies: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recent rates of cancer survival.

Robin Walker: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recent rates of cancer survival.

Jeremy Hunt: This Government inherited the worst cancer survival rates in western Europe and, as we have just heard, we have invested a record £450 million in improving early diagnosis, which means that record numbers of people are being tested and record numbers of people are being treated.

Paul Uppal: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Last year, I met cancer patients and carers with the aim of looking at how we can improve cancer survival rates so that they are among the best in western Europe. The main observation was that early diagnosis is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is
	absolutely crucial that we support GPs to find and identify the early signs and symptoms of cancer so that we can improve survival rates?

Jeremy Hunt: That is absolutely right. What is said by everyone who has been wrestling with this problem about why our survival rates are not as good as we want is that early diagnosis and access to the latest drugs are the two critical things. My hon. Friend will be pleased that 9,000 people in his region have accessed the cancer drugs fund and that, in his constituency, 300 more people every year are now being treated for cancer than was the case four years ago.

Mark Menzies: The excellent progress made in cancer survival rates is great news across the UK and in my constituency in Fylde. A lot of that is down to the increase in availability of diagnostic tests. Statistics from Blackpool’s NHS trust show that just under 33,000 more diagnostic tests were carried out in 2014 compared with 2010. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend commit to increasing the availability of diagnostic tests?

Jeremy Hunt: We absolutely can. In fact, we are carrying out about half a million more diagnostic tests for cancer every year than we were four years ago. The result is that, over the course of this Parliament, 700,000 more people are being admitted for cancer treatment in our hospitals than was the case in the previous Parliament, saving 12,000 lives every year.

Robin Walker: I welcome the Secretary of State’s answers. Improvements in radiotherapy have been a key factor in improving cancer survival rates and quality of life for patients. This month, Worcestershire is celebrating the delivery of a state of the art radiotherapy centre at Worcestershire Royal hospital. I visited that £25 million oncology centre last week. With some of the most advanced equipment in the country and eight new consultants recently recruited, does my right hon. Friend agree that the centre will be a key asset in taking forward the fight against cancer?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. It was a fantastic development for Worcestershire Royal hospital. My hon. Friend campaigned very hard for it, and it is fantastic for his constituents. Cancer treatment is expensive, which is why we can only fund developments in cancer if we have a strong economy. That is what this Government are committed to doing for our NHS.

Grahame Morris: May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an excellent debate we had in the Chamber on 5 February under the auspices of the all-party group on cancer? May I also draw his attention to the uncertainty surrounding the funding of the national cancer peer review group programme? That programme has recently been reviewed and the Minister had indicated that the funding would continue. Will he take the opportunity to give a commitment to funding that peer review group, because there seems to be some doubt among the 17 national cancer charities that support its work.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to furthering and improving peer review as a way of winning the battle against cancer. The NHS is committed to that programme, and it is just looking at how it can be improved.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) seems to be enjoying a very close relationship with his mobile phone. I hope that it profits both of them

Derek Twigg: On the early detection of cancer, will the Secretary of State consider putting more resources into socially deprived areas such as Halton where the incidence of cancer is higher?

Jeremy Hunt: We are putting more resources into Halton. In fact, we are putting more resources into the NHS across the country. We are carrying out 21,000 more diagnostic tests, including cancer tests, every year compared with four years ago, and I hope that that is something the hon. Gentleman will welcome.

John Baron: The all-party group on cancer and the wider cancer community have commended the Government on introducing the one-year survival rates for cancer into the delivery dashboard from April of this year as a means of driving forward earlier diagnosis. But what can the Secretary of State tell us about the work that is being undertaken to ensure that the levers of accountability are in place to push under-performing clinical commissioning groups into raising their standards on behalf of patients?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his understanding of the importance of transparency. He will welcome the fact that we are now saving 1,000 more lives a month as a result of focusing on the five-year survival rates. But that transparency must apply to CCGs as well, and discussions are ongoing with NHS England as to the best way to do that for lots of things, including cancer.

Liz Kendall: Last week, we learned that the 62-day target for cancer treatment has been missed for a full 12 months:
	‘This isn’t just about missed targets–consecutive breaches mean thousands of patients are being failed. These targets exist to ensure swift diagnosis of cancer and access to treatment, which is vital if we’re serious about having the best survival rates in the world.”
	Those are not my words; they are an exact quote from Cancer Research UK. Which bit of it does the Secretary of State disagree with?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not disagree with it, but I will tell the hon. Lady why we are missing that one target. Incidentally, we are hitting the seven other targets. We are treating and diagnosing so many more people, with 560,000 more diagnoses every year. That means that in this Parliament we are treating 700,000 more people than were treated in Labour’s last Parliament, saving 1,000 more lives a month. If the hon. Lady looks at some of the other things that Cancer Research UK says, she will see that they welcome that strongly.

Free Social Care

Sarah Wollaston: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of Her Majesty’s Treasury’s costing of free social care at the end of life.

Norman Lamb: HM Treasury’s costing demonstrates the limitations of data available nationally in estimating the potential costs of providing free personal care at the end of life. That is why the Department of Health is undertaking further work with stakeholders to develop an evidence base to inform the next spending review.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that most people want to be able to remain at home at the end of their lives, surrounded by the people they love, and I pay tribute to all the carers, volunteers and health professionals, including Rowcroft’s hospice at home, who help to make that possible. Sadly, he will also know that often the situation can break down because of the sheer exhaustion of caring for a loved one at the end of their life. Will he commit that the Government will consider the quality of care as well as the costs when considering introducing free end-of-life social care?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and join her in paying tribute to the work of so many people: volunteers, loved ones and the professionals working in the community. The whole emphasis should be on ensuring that we respect people’s choice about where they want to be and that they get the best possible care. Later this week, the independent review of choice at the end of life will be published and I hope that it will inform discussions. I am completely with her in trying to ensure that we can achieve this.

Lisa Nandy: One of my constituents recently went through a lengthy, distressing and difficult process to get NHS continuing care for his wife. If we remove the distinction between NHS and social care, many people across this country, including my constituent, will be spared this distress and difficulty at one of the hardest times in their lives. We know that funding should be put where it is needed and we know that that will be more cost-effective in the long run and will be better for patients, so why will the Minister not act?

Norman Lamb: Actually, we are all agreed on this. We all want free care at the end of life, but whoever is in power after the election in May will have to ensure that we understand fully the costs. There is a lot of evidence, and the evidence is growing. We are having very good discussions with groups involved in care at the end of life and we all want to achieve a solution. Of course, the truth is that very many people are receiving free care at the end of life, but they are in hospital, where they often do not want to be. I am completely with the hon. Lady in trying to achieve this.

Paul Burstow: Eight out of 10 people say that they would prefer to die at home when their time comes. Since the Government published their White Paper and said that they saw merit in social care being free at the end of life, a succession of reports from Macmillan, Nuffield and others have shown that there are savings to be made and benefits in terms of more dignified deaths and compassion for families. Is it not time to act on the evidence and make social care free at the end of life?

Norman Lamb: We very much hope that the case will stack up. As I said earlier, we are in active discussions with these groups and I held a round table with them a few months ago to discuss how we can achieve this. Everyone is agreed on the objective, but we need to understand the full costs involved before any Government can make a commitment to it.

Frank Field: Is there not something deceitful about the Government’s promising major changes for the next Parliament when we do not know how they will be paid for? If we want improvements to the NHS and end-of-life care in the next Parliament, Members on both sides of the House need to put before the electorate how we will pay for those important long-term changes.

Norman Lamb: I am tempted to say that that is a bit rich coming from an Opposition Member. I am sure that he would agree that whatever commitments are made, we need to understand their cost. That work is under way and I hope that as soon as we achieve a full understanding we can proceed.

Genomics Programme

James Morris: What assessment he has made of the potential of the genomics programme to improve cancer treatment.

George Freeman: The Government’s £300 million genomics England programme, led and announced by the Prime Minister as part of our life science strategy, has the potential to improve dramatically cancer diagnosis and treatment. By sequencing the entire genetic code of 100,000 NHS patients and volunteers and combining the data with their clinical records, and launching a genomic medicine service—a world first for the NHS—we will be able to understand the genetic triggers of disease, unlock new diagnostics and identify better treatments from existing drugs.

James Morris: The number of people being treated for cancer successfully and getting appropriate diagnostic treatment in Dudley and Sandwell has increased substantially in the past five years, but does the Minister agree that harnessing genomic medicine is key to the future, and that we need to drive innovation in this field over the next 10, 20 and 30 years?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right: cancer is a genetic disease, and the more we know about genetics, the more we discover about different patients’ predisposition to different diseases and drugs. That is absolutely key, nowhere more clearly than in breast cancer, where the HER2-Herceptin breakthrough and the BRCA2 gene are allowing us better to screen, predict and target treatment of breast cancer, freeing women from the choice of mastectomy, which has been far too dominant, and enabling us to treat breast cancer as a preventable disease.

Mental Health

Bob Russell: What guidance he has given to clinical commissioning groups and mental health trusts on jointly funding not-for-profit voluntary and charitable organisations providing support for people with mental health issues.

Norman Lamb: The Government are clear that voluntary organisations and charities make an important contribution to the delivery of local health and social care services, including services that support people’s mental health needs. However, it is the responsibility of local commissioners to commission appropriate services based on their local population’s needs.

Bob Russell: The Minister will be aware that although the NHS is one organisation, trusts seem to operate as silos. Will he convene a meeting of all the trusts in the Colchester area to discuss the future of the Haven project?

Norman Lamb: I visited the Haven last week with my hon. Friend, and I was enormously impressed by everything I heard, including the extraordinary testimonies of people with personality disorders who had benefited so much from the Haven’s service. In my view, it would be incredibly sad and very worrying if that service were to be lost. I am happy to invite the clinical commissioning group and the mental health trust to a meeting in the Department to discuss how it can be saved.

Kevin Barron: I recently met the five UK Youth Parliament Members from Rotherham, who talked about the lack of facilities for mental health help in education, both further education and state education. May I say to the Minister that it is all right saying that it is up to local commissioning groups, but where is the leadership, when our young people are being left in extremely difficult situations and are seen by some professionals but, sadly, not health professionals?

Norman Lamb: The local Members of the Youth Parliament the right hon. Gentleman met make an incredibly important point. I refer him to the children and young people’s mental health and well-being taskforce, which will report very soon. I think that the role of schools will be crucial in its conclusions, and I encourage him to look at the report when it emerges.

Luciana Berger: The latest figures show a huge rise in the number of young people with a mental illness turning up at A and E. Young people not getting the help they need early on and becoming so ill that they need hospital care shows that the system is failing. Does the Minister accept that this Government’s decision to cut children’s mental health services at the same time as wasting £3 billion on a reorganisation has been a key factor in that failure?

Norman Lamb: This Government have absolutely not made any decision to cut children’s mental health services, and the hon. Lady knows it is misleading to suggest otherwise. These decisions are taken by local commissioners in local authorities and CCGs. Indeed, we have legislated for parity of esteem for mental health. I urge her to look
	at the outcome of the work of the children and young people’s mental health and well-being taskforce, which I think gives us a real opportunity to improve the way in which services operate.

Nurse Numbers

Stephen McCabe: How many nurses per million population were working in the NHS in each of the last five years.

Daniel Poulter: The full-time equivalent number of nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the hospital and community health services in England per million population from September 2010 to September 2014 inclusive has remained broadly constant at 5,872, 5,768, 5,703, 5,712 and 5,781, respectively.

Stephen McCabe: In response to 11 parliamentary questions that I submitted in the past year, the Minister has admitted that he does not know how many part-time, agency and locum GPs are in the health service, the number of agency and part-time nurses, the number of part-time doctors in our hospitals, or how many working nurses and midwives are also drawing their pensions. Given that he has so little detail on staffing, where did today’s figures come from, and what faith can anyone have in them?

Daniel Poulter: They are in the monthly staff statistics survey. As the hon. Gentleman would like some detailed information, I am sure he will be pleased to hear that in his constituency there are now 386 more nurses than there were in 2010 under the previous Government, and nationally there are 7,500 more nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the NHS.

Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with the nursing profession that if nurse staffing levels on acute hospital wards fall below one registered nurse to seven acutely ill patients, excluding the registered nurse in charge, it will significantly increase the risk to patient care and result in avoidable excess deaths?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this many times and I do not agree with him, as he knows. What is important is that patients are assessed on their clinical needs. A rehabilitation ward will need a different number of nurses—indeed, it may need physiotherapists and occupational therapists—from intensive care nursing, which often requires one-to-one care, so setting arbitrary staffing ratios is not in the best interests of patients.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister accept that the issue is not just broad numbers, but the shortage of specialised nurses in many departments, certainly in Calderdale and Huddersfield, where we are finding it difficult to recruit the right qualified nurses for very specialist tasks, as well as the doctors to go with them?

Daniel Poulter: In many parts of the country we are seeing more specialist nurses working, particularly in areas such as diabetes, and supporting patients with complex care needs. As we need better to support
	people with those complex care needs at home in their own communities, the Government will continue to invest in specialist nurses not just to provide care in hospital, but to work in the community at the same time.

Ian Austin: Russells Hall hospital is being forced to lose one in 10 staff, which could include midwives, to deal with Government efficiency savings of £12 million every year. This morning the hospital’s chief executive has written to me and says that these
	“excessive efficiency requirements place care at risk”.
	She goes on to say that
	“the financial challenge has reached unviable levels”
	and that NHS providers
	“can no longer guarantee sustainable and safe care”.
	What will it take for Ministers to listen not just to us, but to NHS staff, and ensure that hospitals such as Russells Hall have the resources they need to provide care for local people?

Daniel Poulter: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that, as part of our winter pressures funding, Dudley received £3.5 million to support the hospital during a difficult winter period. There are now 69 more doctors and 324 more nurses, of whom 29 are extra midwives, working in the area than in 2010.

Personality Disorder Support (North Essex)

Bernard Jenkin: What discussions he has had with (a) the Haven project in Colchester and (b) NHS bodies in north Essex on the need for continuing funding for support for people with moderate to severe personality disorder.

Norman Lamb: My right hon. and noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for quality responded in February 2014 to correspondence from the client chair of the Haven project about its funding. As I said a few minutes ago, decisions on NHS funding are a matter for local commissioners, but I will invite North East Essex clinical commissioning group to meet to discuss the issue in more detail.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking such a close interest in the matter, and for the visit paid by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Although I understand the huge cost pressures on the CCG, may I invite my right hon. Friend to study the Enable East report, which made a different recommendation on how the unit should be treated? It would be sad to close the leading example among 11 Department of Health pilots, when all the other 10 are being kept open as the lessons learned are so valuable.

Norman Lamb: I am very much aware of the work that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) have done on this. It is interesting that all the other 10 pilots have continued. They are part of NHS trusts. This is the only
	one run by a voluntary sector organisation. It is an incredibly valuable service. I was struck by the extent to which people said how much they had reduced their hospital in-patient admissions as a result of the incredibly impressive preventive work that this service provides, and I want to look into it further.

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome

Andrew Griffiths: What support the Government are giving to people with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Jane Ellison: The Government acknowledge the challenge posed in supporting patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which encompasses a complex range of conditions with a wide variety of symptoms. Diagnosis and investigation of suspected EDS takes place in dedicated regional genetics clinics, with specialist clinics, as my hon. Friend will know, at Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and London North West Healthcare NHS Trust.

Andrew Griffiths: People in Burton have raised £130,000 to pay for a life-saving operation that is not available in the UK for Nina Parsons, my constituent, who suffers from EDS. I have another constituent, Sarah Pugh, who is having to pay for vital physiotherapy and an MRI scan. Will my hon. Friend look at what more can be done to help people suffering the misery of EDS, and will she agree to meet some sufferers to discuss the matter further?

Jane Ellison: I am certainly very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about his particular constituents. I am aware of the work that he has done in his local area. He will be interested to know that in 2013 the Government published “The UK Strategy for Rare Diseases” precisely to address such issues and the complexities around them, and aspects of that strategy speak directly to the challenges that he has just outlined. May I also take this opportunity to mention that there is an event tomorrow in Parliament organised by Rare Disease UK to mark rare disease day, at which the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), will be speaking?

Palliative Care

Philip Davies: What estimate he has made of the number of admissions to A & E in the last three years for patients with palliative care needs in (a) areas with a 24-hour palliative care helpline or palliative co-ordination centre and (b) areas that do not offer such services; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Lamb: We know from local examples that areas that offer 24/7 community palliative care services have been able to reduce the number of A and E attendances and inappropriate hospital admissions, including emergency admissions, for people with palliative care needs. I would encourage all areas to offer these services in line with the NICE quality standard.

Philip Davies: A poll conducted by Sue Ryder shows that 82% of people expect advice to be available 24/7, yet only 8% of CCG areas have a dedicated around-the-clock palliative care helpline and co-ordination centre. As I am sure we all agree, carers do wonderful work and need as much support as possible. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department work with Sue Ryder and others to ensure that there is a dedicated 24/7 palliative care service, which would certainly help to take the strain away from A and E, which is already under great pressure?

Norman Lamb: I pay tribute to the professionals in my hon. Friend’s area, which is one of the leading areas for providing strong support in the community, which prevents unnecessary hospital admissions. I am very happy to work with Sue Ryder and others to try to get the message across that if this can be provided throughout the country we will improve the experience of people at the end of life, but critically also save costs further down the line by stopping inappropriate hospital admissions.

Mental Health

Mary Macleod: What his priorities are for improving mental health care.

Mr Speaker: Minister Lamb.

Norman Lamb: Mr Speaker, you sounded a note of tedium in calling my name again.

Mr Speaker: I feel no sense of tedium but almost a state of ecstasy upon calling the right hon. Gentleman. If I gave any other impression, I most heartily apologise to him. I hope that he is now assured of his status in the affections of the Chair, if, possibly, also of the House? There might have to be a Division on that proposition. I do not know.

Norman Lamb: I am so grateful to be reassured, Mr Speaker.
	Mental health is a priority for this Government. We have legislated for parity of esteem between mental and physical health, invested £400 million in talking therapies, significantly reduced the numbers of people who are placed in police cells during mental health crises and are introducing the first waiting times standards for mental health services from April this year.

Mary Macleod: I recently met a constituent at one of my advice surgeries who had been refused NHS mental health care because she was told that she was entitled to only one batch of free support. Considering how complicated and varied mental health issues can be, is there anything we can do for people who need more support after a relapse of mental ill health?

Norman Lamb: If that was the advice the hon. Lady’s constituent received, it is complete and utter nonsense. The idea that someone can have only one episode of care under the NHS is so ridiculous that it hardly merits a proper response. I urge her to encourage her constituent,
	with her support, to go back to those local services and ensure that she gets further support if she needs it, as she is entitled to it.

Community Hospitals

Neil Parish: What assessment his Department has made of the future role of community hospitals.

George Freeman: Community hospitals can play a hugely important role in the 21st-century NHS. The NHS “Five Year Forward View” explicitly recognised the role of smaller hospitals, including community hospitals, as part of the new care models towards which we need to evolve. Specific local commissioning decisions are rightly taken by local clinical commissioning groups, reflecting local need.

Neil Parish: We have excellent hospitals in Tiverton, Honiton, Axminster and Seaton, and there could be a much greater link between them and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. For example, patients could be moved to the community hospital in Axminster after acute operations, thereby creating space at the RD and E and keeping Axminster hospital open with beds, which the population is keen to see.

George Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless work on this matter. I know that he recently met the Secretary of State to discuss it and that he has been very active locally and here in Parliament. He is right that local community hospitals can play a key role in supporting patient convalescence, providing particularly good care in the community close to home, which is convenient for elderly patients, and relieving pressure on acute hospital beds. You do not have to take it from me, Mr Speaker; take it from Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England. He recently said:
	“A number of other countries have found it possible to run viable local hospitals serving smaller communities than sometimes we think are sustainable in the NHS…The NHS needs to abandon a fixation with ‘mass centralisation’”.
	I hugely welcome that.

Confidentiality Agreements

Andrew Robathan: With reference to the recent Francis report, if he will investigate (a) the case of Meirion Thomas at the Royal Marsden hospital and (b) cases where staff have been disciplined or required to sign confidentiality agreements.

Jane Ellison: The Government welcome any individual who has the courage to shine a light on malpractice, wrongdoing or patient safety issues in the NHS, and the House will be well aware that that is something the Secretary of State has very much championed. Professor Thomas has a right to express his views on the health service and on wider issues, and I understand that the trust has confirmed that. The Department is not responsible for investigating cases involving individual members of
	staff, but I want to be clear that confidentiality agreements cannot be used to prevent individuals from making a protected disclosure in the public interest.

Andrew Robathan: I am glad to hear that, and I note that the Secretary of State has had dealings with Professor Thomas. However, I think it is very important that this is looked at closely in the light of the Francis report. If it is the case, as is said in media reports, that Professor Thomas has been forced to sign a confidentiality agreement—a so-called gagging order—I think that is disgraceful and shows a very dire state in the NHS in the Royal Marsden. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.

Jane Ellison: I can only reiterate this Government’s complete commitment to openness when it comes to patient safety and say again that confidentiality agreements cannot be used to prevent individuals from making a protected disclosure in the public interest.

NHS (West London)

Andy Slaughter: What plans he has for the NHS in west London.

Jane Ellison: Clinicians in west London are leading a process that is very much aimed at improving services for people in west London. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the local NHS is pressing ahead with the implementation of service improvements as part of the clinically led reconfiguration programme, “Shaping a healthier future”.

Andy Slaughter: The Minister does not sound very convinced by that herself. I wonder whether she saw the comments from the College of Emergency Medicine yesterday, which said that attempts to dissuade people from going to A and E have been a dismal failure and that what we should do is locate primary care services alongside A and E. That is the model we have at Charing Cross hospital and in the rest of west London, and it is succeeding. What is failing is the closure of emergency departments, which is creating an intolerable strain. Will the Government look again at the issue? Will you stop closing A and Es in west London?

Jane Ellison: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has a dismal track record of campaigning on this issue. We have all seen the leaflets being put out in west London. I can only say to his constituents that in the run-up to the election they would glean more from reading their tea leaves than from reading his leaflets if they want to know the truth about the NHS in west London.

Topical Questions

Nick Harvey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: At the end of this Parliament, and before returning, I trust, to the same side of this Chamber in late May, I am pleased to update the House on NHS work force numbers. On the back of a strong economy, our NHS
	now has more doctors, nurses and midwives than ever before in its history, including 7,500 more nurses and 9,500 more doctors. The result is 9 million more operations during this Parliament than the previous Parliament, fewer people waiting a long time for their operations, and a start in putting right the scandal of short-staffed wards that we inherited and were highlighted by the Francis report. Indeed, last year the Commonwealth Fund said that under this Government the NHS has become the safest, most patient-centred and overall best health care system in any major country.

Mr Speaker: Let me point out that topical questions and answers should be brief. It is a rank discourtesy—[Interruption.] Order. It is a rank discourtesy to the House to expatiate at length and thereby to deny other Members the chance to put their questions. It will not happen. Simple, short, factual answers are what is required.

Nick Harvey: In the past couple of days, a number of Devon and Cornwall hospitals have declared black alert status, meaning, essentially, that they are full and cannot cope with any more demand. Do Ministers therefore understand the public concern that the clinical commissioning group is considering closing beds in community hospitals, including Ilfracombe and South Molton in my constituency? Can anything more be done to help rural health economies that are trying to restructure but already struggling to cope with existing demand?

Jeremy Hunt: We do understand those concerns. It is absolutely essential that CCGs make sure that they have the right bed capacity to deal with the pressures of winters.

Andy Burnham: Let me take the Secretary of State back to a subject he likes to avoid—NHS privatisation. He tries to deny that it is happening on his watch, but we heard earlier about the ideological privatisation of cancer scanning in Cheshire and Staffordshire, despite its being more expensive than the NHS bid—and now it could get much worse. On the Friday before the recess, the Government sneaked out the public contracts regulations, which require NHS contracts worth over €750,000 to be opened up to full EU competition. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is indeed the case in these regulations, and can he explain what mandate he has from the public to open up the NHS to private bidders across Europe?

Jeremy Hunt: Since the last time the right hon. Gentleman and I met, the King’s Fund has published its assessment of the NHS reforms over the past few years, and its words were:
	“Claims of mass NHS privatisation were and are exaggerated”.
	He knows perfectly well that outsourcing grew at double the rate under the previous Labour Government than it has grown under this Government.

Andy Burnham: The King’s Fund report said that as a result of the Secretary of State’s reforms there is
	“greater marketisation of the NHS”.
	People will notice that he failed to answer my question. That is because he wants to sneak these plans through under the radar. I serve notice on him today that we will
	fight him all the way, right to the very last day of this Parliament. If passed, these regulations will mean that almost every NHS contract will be forced to be advertised across Europe, shattering the promise he made to protect the NHS from EU competition law. Is it not now abundantly clear that he has forfeited the public’s trust on the NHS, and that five more years of this Government will lead to huge acceleration in NHS privatisation?

Jeremy Hunt: I repeat:
	“Claims of mass NHS privatisation were and are exaggerated”.
	If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the reforms, let us look at a country that did not have them—Wales. The number of people waiting too long for A and E is nearly double that in England, the number of people waiting too long for urgent ambulances is nearly double that in England, and the number of people waiting for operations is 10 times that in England. That is our record—it is a record of success.

Glyn Davies: Not enough GPs want to practise in rural Wales. I am told that one of the reasons is that GPs registered in England have to go through a bureaucratic process to be able to work in Wales. Will my hon. Friend the Minister work with the Welsh Government to ensure that we have a common registration process so that GPs can move between England and Wales without having lengthy, time-wasting new bureaucracy?

Daniel Poulter: I am very happy to look into that issue and to do what we can to support our NHS work force to move as freely as possible between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. GP numbers in England have increased because we have protected the NHS budget, unlike in Wales, where it has been cut by the Labour Administration.

Karl Turner: A recent Ashcroft poll shows that only 15% of the public think that this Government have the best approach to running the NHS. Will the Secretary of State stand up at the Dispatch Box and apologise for his top-down reorganisation of the NHS and his Tory privatising Health and Social Care Act, and accept that the public will never trust the Tories with the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the public think about the NHS: last year, under this Government, dissatisfaction was at its lowest ever level and satisfaction jumped the highest among Labour voters. And where did satisfaction go down? In Wales.

Annette Brooke: I have previously made Ministers aware that there are no beds for females in Dorset who need intensive psychiatric care. Our local newspaper, the Daily Echo, reports that such places will not be provided in Dorset for another three years. Meanwhile, patients are being sent as far away as Bradford. Do Ministers regard that as satisfactory? Are there enough resources coming to Dorset, or is it a local organisational issue?

Norman Lamb: No, I do not regard that as satisfactory and I am happy to talk to the local commissioners. We have
	ensured that there will be real-terms increases in mental health funding for 2015-16, and that should be regarded locally as a matter of urgency.

David Crausby: Bolton’s accident and emergency department has been in crisis recently, partly because the clinical commissioning group closed the town’s walk-in centre. Will the Secretary of State support my petition calling for its reinstatement, or will he say, more predictably, “It’s not me, guv; I’m just the Secretary of State for Health”?

Jeremy Hunt: I am accountable for what happens in the NHS, so let me tell the hon. Gentleman what is actually happening in Bolton: compared with four years ago, 2,756 more people are being seen at A and E within four hours. That is a record of investment and success.

Duncan Hames: What alternatives do clinical commissioning groups have to a full-scale commercial procurement when their existing contracts for community health services approach the time when they have run their course?

Norman Lamb: That is a matter for local commissioners. There is no requirement on them to tender competitively if their judgment is that it is right for the local community that services remain with the existing provider. We have been very clear that that is a matter for local commissioners.

Graeme Morrice: My constituent Wilma Ord was prescribed Primodos in the 1970s, an oral hormone pregnancy testing pill that she blames for her daughter’s birth defects. As the Secretary of State is aware, it was announced back in October that an inquiry would be established to look into the whole issue. What progress has been made in setting up the inquiry and what assurances can he give my constituent, and the many other women and families affected throughout the country, that the inquiry will be fully comprehensive, transparent and independent?

George Freeman: I am delighted to report that I have met colleagues from across the House and patient representatives of that campaign on a number of occasions. We have appointed the chair and made sure that the terms of reference for the inquiry are clear and comprehensive. It is not, I stress, a judicial inquiry; it is a medical inquiry looking at the evidence.[Official Report, 19 March 2015, Vol. 594, c. 1MC.]

Tim Loughton: A constituent of mine has pointed out that, despite it being a long-term condition, drugs for cystic fibrosis are not subject to an exemption from prescription charges, apparently because, when it was first diagnosed, it was considered to be only a children’s disease. Will Ministers look into this anomaly?

Jane Ellison: This issue came up in a debate on cystic fibrosis last year and I am very happy to look at it again. I looked at it subsequent to that debate, in response to an inquiry from, I think, the hon. Member
	for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), but I am happy to look at it again and get back to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

Paul Blomfield: When I asked the Minister last June what guarantees he would give to GP practices at risk because of the withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee, I was told that NHS England would ensure threatened practices
	“get to the right place.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 400.]
	Over the past seven months, those discussions have not alleviated the threat to two highly regarded practices in my constituency that face closure. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of the practices to discuss what is really happening, and to consider what can be done to save them?

Daniel Poulter: I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that the move away from the historical funding formula towards a per head or capitation formula is a move in the right direction. If there are certain local concerns, I am very happy to meet him to discuss them.

Robert Jenrick: May I commend the Government on raising the priority for dementia in their announcement last week? Will the Secretary of State and the Department of Health put all their resources behind towns such as Newark, which are trying to establish themselves as dementia-friendly towns and are working with shopkeepers, banks and the business community to make it easier for older people with dementia to lead fulfilling lives?

Jeremy Hunt: I commend my hon. Friend on his work in that area. People with dementia want to lead as normal a life as possible, and being able to go out to the shops is one very important thing they want to continue to do. We now have 1 million dementia friends in this country. That is a great step forward, and with his help we will do even more.

Alison Seabeck: When does the Secretary of State expect NHS England to confirm a date for the national tariff for the supply of prosthetic services and equipment? The lengthy and, quite frankly, unacceptable delay on his watch is now causing really serious issues for those who need prosthetics, as well as for those who want to deliver the services.

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to look into that issue and get back to the hon. Lady.

Jeremy Lefroy: In addition to the work that Monitor does on tariffs for individual pathways, what work has it done to assess the base funding that acute hospitals need to maintain core services, which are so interdependent?

Jeremy Hunt: Monitor has done extensive work on this issue, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about it. If we are to meet the financial challenge that the NHS faces over the next five years, we need to have
	a very sensible discussion about what realistic efficiency gains need to be made, and I am sure that he will engage in those discussions.

Mark Reckless: Medway clinical commissioning group is looking at putting GPs at the front of our accident and emergency department to help relieve pressures on emergency doctors. Do Ministers believe that that is a promising way forward?

Daniel Poulter: There is certainly a lot of benefit from having general practice co-located alongside A and E so that people with more minor ailments or concerns can be seen by GPs. That can often take the pressure off A and E services, but more senior expertise is also on hand when required.

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what steps he is taking to prevent avoidable deaths from sepsis?

Jeremy Hunt: I am absolutely happy to do that. Overall, we have 1,000 avoidable deaths every month by some estimates, and a number of those are from sepsis. We have launched a big campaign to prevent those deaths. Indeed, we will shortly have the results of the Morecambe Bay inquiry, from which I think we will hear more about the issue. I want to thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and her work with the all-party group on sepsis to raise awareness of this very important issue.

Bridget Phillipson: GPs across the north-east say that they are facing a work force crisis, with falling numbers of family doctors. Does the Secretary of State not recognise the connection between people being unable to get an appointment to see their GP and the rising and major pressure on our A and E department?

Daniel Poulter: I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to support the plans we have put in place to ensure that we increase the number of GPs by 2020, and to ensure that 50% of doctors leaving foundation training go into careers in general practice.

Adrian Sanders: In order to combat fraud, the previous Government quite rightly introduced five-year prescription charge exemption certificates. Now that the certificates are coming up for renewal, people are finding that they have to pay for their medicines once their certificate has expired, and they have even been fined. Unlike for a TV licence, there is no renewal reminder. Will the Government look at how to ensure that people are told they need to renew their prescription exemption certificates?

Daniel Poulter: As my hon. Friend will be aware, 90% of patients receive free prescriptions either because they are older—over the age of 60—or because of long-standing or other factors. If his constituents are running into difficulties and have problems with renewing their certificate, I am very happy to look into that and to meet him to discuss it further.

David Anderson: Despite assurance from the Prime Minister, it is now clear that the drug Translarna will not be available until after NHS England has concluded its internal consultations. The Secretary of State and others have told me repeatedly that they
	have no control over the issue, but can the Minister give the House any idea when the drug will be available for young boys suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy in this country, in the same way as it is across Europe? The drug is saving young boys from going into wheelchairs earlier. Does the Minister have any idea when it will be available?

George Freeman: I have had a number of meetings with patient groups, campaigners and charities over recent months, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that due process is important. NHS England is looking
	at whether to make an interim ruling on the drug in advance of a decision by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and I have worked with NICE to ensure that its process is accelerated. We should get a decision from NICE this summer, and I hope that NHS England will make a rapid decision based on that judgment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but as usual demand has exceeded supply.

Points of Order

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a genuine request for information, because I am ignorant about this matter. On 13 January, I forwarded correspondence from one of my constituents to the Prime Minister. My constituent was very concerned about what he perceived to be the Prime Minister’s wish with regard to encrypted communications
	“to enable the government to snoop”
	on the private individual.
	As the months passed and I received no response, I followed the matter up, and on 23 February I received a copy of a letter sent directly to my constituent. It is on Conservative party paper and comes from the political correspondence manager at No. 10 Downing street. The correspondent was sorry to read of my constituent’s concerns and stated:
	“The Conservative manifesto will therefore make very clear that a Conservative government will introduce the legislation”.
	The final sentence of the letter states:
	“I do hope you find this reassuring and that you will feel able to support us in the months and years ahead.”
	It was my understanding that no humble Back-Bench MP was ever allowed to use their parliamentary offices or salaries for party political campaigning. It is also my understanding that No. 10 Downing street does not become the property of its incumbent’s political party. I would be grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker, about precisely to whom I can address my concerns about what strikes me as totally unacceptable behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Although I understand the considerable unhappiness that the hon. Lady might feel and that her constituent has experienced, it is not clear to me that this is a matter for the Chair. I say that in all sincerity—I have had modest advance notice of the matter, and it is not clear to me. The question of the letterhead is not a matter for the Chair; it may well have been judged proper in the circumstances to volunteer a view as to what a party to the coalition would intend for the future, rather than to purport to speak on the behalf of the coalition Government as a whole. In other words, it might be thought by some people to be a prudent judgment to answer on behalf of a party on party note paper, rather than on the part of a Government. That may be a matter of opinion.
	I take what the hon. Lady says seriously, not least because she does not regularly raise points of order—certainly not frivolous ones that, believe it or not, some people are inclined to make. I therefore treat her with great seriousness. She will be with us, fortunately, in the House for a little while longer, and I feel sure that there will be an opportunity for her to air her concerns. She will look at the Order Paper and see what opportunities for questioning there are, and she will draw from her study the appropriate conclusion. Perhaps we can leave it there for now.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you do not consider this frivolous. You gave me a very considered
	reply when I asked for guidance on the unique situation of having a fixed-term Parliament, and ministerial visits around the country. We have just had Health questions, where Ministers referred to visits to Members’ constituencies—to look at things, presumably. What guidance can you give me, Mr Speaker? We are seeing targeted ministerial visits in this long campaign, which are obviously purely political visits to prop up candidates in marginal seat. I do not mind, as I said in my previous point of order, if these are political visits and they are paid for by Conservative central office or whatever. What I object to are political visits by Ministers to marginal seats, such as those in west Yorkshire, being paid for by the taxpayer. Can you guide me as to whom I complain to, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his point of order, is that if he thinks there has been an abuse of public funds, it is open to him to raise that matter with the National Audit Office. However, the question of Ministers’ visits is not, and very properly not, a matter for the Chair. The only point I would make is that Ministers must visit the Chamber in order to answer questions—that is a matter of course—and Ministers must visit the Chamber, at the instruction of the Speaker, to answer urgent questions, something that happens rather more now than in the past. Beyond that, the day-to-day activities of Ministers—where, when, for how long, or in whose interests they perambulate around the country—is, thankfully, not a matter for me.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr Speaker: I do want to come on to the ten-minute rule motion, but—[Interruption.] Unlike some people, who are tolerant of the sound of their own voices but spectacularly uninterested in those of others, I will hear the hon. Gentleman. If there are a few Members who do not like it, they will have to lump it.

Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to make myself unpopular with anyone, but I would like guidance on a matter similar to that which I raised in a point of order two weeks ago: Ministers coming to constituencies and not telling the constituency MP. They are telling Government MPs, but not Opposition MPs. That is breaking a convention that this House has honoured for a very long time.

Mr Speaker: On that point the position is clear: it is a convention and not a rule. The convention should be honoured. What I have said many times in response to protests from Members on both sides of the House, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the spirit of the convention should be observed. What that means is that a Member should give decent notice to the person whose constituency he or she is intending to visit, of the fact of that prospective visit. That is pretty clear, but it ought not really to be necessary for it to be constantly aired on the Floor of the House. I think people outside this place attending to our proceedings, who are often very critical of the way in which we conduct ourselves, would expect that grown-ups could treat each other with courtesy and respect in this matter, and indeed, perhaps, in a good many others.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), but may I just make the point that the more Ministers visit my constituency, the more my support grows? I am making no complaint.

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I repeat the point I have often made. The hon. Gentleman has served without interruption in the House since 1979, so it is coming up to 36 years in the House without a break. Before that, he served for four years in a different constituency from 1966 to 1970. The hon. Gentleman is now a celebrated denizen of this House and he must be doing something right.

Nature

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Randall: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set biodiversity and other targets for 2040; to establish a Natural Capital Committee; to require local authorities to maintain local ecological network strategies; to identify species threatened with extinction; to make provision for access to high quality natural green space; and to include education about the natural environment in the curriculum for maintained schools.
	The idea of our green and pleasant land is more a part of the Great British identity than of any other country I know—more than the rainforests of Borneo or the rolling savannah of the Serengeti. In recognition of the importance of our environment, the House has pioneered laws that have changed the world by protecting nature. Even as the bombs of the second world war were falling, MPs from all parties were debating how recovery would depend on protecting and restoring our natural landscapes. Looking back in Hansard, I found that hon. Members were urging the Government, especially in view of the new national health crusade, to take action on
	“the countryside and its amenities, including the reservation of areas of natural interest against disorderly development and spoliation and the improvement of their accessibility to the public.”—[Official Report, 9 December 1936; Vol. 318, c. 2132.]
	Even a century ago, people knew that our countryside was vital to people’s health and well-being.
	With cross-party support, visionary MPs introduced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to protect our national parks and areas of outstanding beauty. Since then, the House has legislated to protect thousands of species, in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and to provide countryside access for everyone, in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and it was the first in the world to create binding national targets to tackle climate change. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition for reaffirming those vital commitments last week. That announcement was reported and commended around the world.
	Today, I am proposing a nature and well-being Bill to take us further. We are the generation of David Attenborough and “Springwatch”. We are also the Danny Boyle generation—probably the only people in the world to understand why the Olympic opening ceremony started off with a flock of sheep and some farmyard geese. We all understand that nature is a part of our lives and a part of our identity, but we are also the generation that could preside over a terrible loss. We know that 60% of our native species are in long-term decline and that more and more of our countryside and wildlife are disappearing. Unless we do something about it, many of the next generation will never see a house sparrow in London, hear the song of the turtle dove or cuckoo, or smile at a hedgehog snuffling along their garden path.
	Ultimately, nature’s loss is our loss too. No Government can meet their social and economic objectives at the expense of nature, and it is impossible to create a sustainable economy while we continue to take more
	from our natural world than we put back. Perhaps the most obvious example is our fisheries. Restoring our fish stocks to the levels of 50 years ago could bring in £1.4 billion a year and revitalise our seaside economy—one has only to ask the fishermen whose lines come up empty because the sea has been trawled to ruin. Or think of the bees. The Environment Secretary has rightly recognised the importance of nature’s pollinators to our farming sector—the biggest manufacturing sector in Britain—and I understand that she even has bees on the roof of DEFRA.
	Neither will we ever have a truly fair society with a decent standard of living while environmental inequality remains, because it is the poorest and most vulnerable people who live along the most polluted streets, with no access to green space. It is a travesty that people still die years earlier in some places than in others because the air they breathe is dirtier and they have no safe green places to walk in or exercise. Natural England has estimated that we could save £2.1 billion for the NHS every year if everyone had decent access to nature.
	We all want nature because, frankly, it is brilliant, but we also need it for our livelihoods. The first thing to do is to admit there is a problem and then make a commitment to change. I know that targets might not be in vogue in this House—there are people who do not always agree with them—but people outside this place understand what they mean, and I want to tell people that we will be the first generation ever to turn around nature’s decline. I want us to make that promise and to set targets for wildlife sites and species, with regular reporting to Parliament. In the next 25 years, we should ensure that British biodiversity is richer than today, measured by an index of wildlife. We should make sure that our most precious landscapes—places such as the north Norfolk coast, which I was lucky enough to visit last week—are in better condition than today.
	We all know, however, that targets are pointless unless they help to change the way we behave, which is why I am also proposing new ways to put nature at the heart of decision making.
	The present Government created the Natural Capital Committee, and the last Government conducted the national ecosystem assessment. That amazing work has begun to show how crucial our natural world is for our businesses and communities, but we routinely ignore our need for nature in the way in which we make decisions. I want to do what the Environmental Audit Committee recommended and set the Natural Capital Committee on a legislative footing, giving it new independence and new powers to report on progress. Its duty will be to ensure that when we make new law, the importance of nature is taken into account.
	However, it is not enough to create new-fangled accounting mechanisms without changing what is actually happening in our countryside, and also in our towns and cities. One inspiring example is Wallasea Island. Crossrail has recycled 4.5 million tonnes of earth from its works to build a new island, which I hope will be home to some amazing birds such as the spoonbill. Thousands of ducks and geese are already enjoying the site. Moreover, the development is expected to save £650,000 in flood defences, create new jobs, and protect the existing jobs that are supported by the fisheries and dockside businesses in the area.
	We shall need a great many new homes over the next few years, so let us ensure that we provide them in a way that works for nature. The best businesses are already thinking about that. Barratt Developments has just teamed up with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to build 2,500 homes in Aylesbury. Some 50% of the development will be green space, and RSPB scientists will monitor the site over the next 20 years to ensure that we end up with more wildlife than we started with. That is good for nature, good for the people who live there, and good for business, but it must not be the exception. We need to make sure that we reward the businesses that look after nature, and that we set the right standards to help to give people what they need. That is why I am also proposing new ways in which to plan for nature at local level. Sir John Lawton has shown how important nature networks are in linking big green spaces, and the Wildlife Trusts have shown how mapping those spaces in local plans can help to speed up planning decisions and improve important services such as natural flood defences.
	Today, our children are more cooped up than they have ever been before. The average distance between the areas where they play and their homes is a fraction of what it was a generation ago. We should set basic standards for access to green space so that everyone has a chance to enjoy nature. Of course, that does not mean that every house can have Richmond Park down the road, but it does mean that when planning decisions are made, we should consider how nature can improve people’s health, mental health and education. In built-up areas, that might mean planning for a new road bridge, or planting wild flowers to bring a patch of grass to life.
	I am not alone in calling for a Nature Act. More than 20 organisations have joined the campaign for a Nature and Wellbeing Act, including the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, the Green Alliance and the Ramblers, as well as health and mental health charities. They recognise that even in tough times—perhaps especially in tough times—people need nature, and nature needs us.
	Let me end by reminding the House that there are always great challenges for society to face. Today we are recovering from an economic challenge, but we are also planning to meet huge challenges for our NHS, and we are looking for ways in which to build enough homes. Let us follow the example set a century ago by those Members of Parliament who knew, even in wartime, that if we were to meet our biggest challenges, we would have to look after our natural world. Let us be the first generation to make a commitment in law to turn around nature’s decline, for its own sake, for our economy, for our communities and for our children. We should do that not only because nature is special—here in the House we can look at the peregrines that nest on the top of Victoria Tower, and I can see them from my office window—and not only because we need it for our economy and our health care, but because it is a part of who we are.
	This will be an issue for the next Parliament, and I shall be watching all Members then. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Sir John Randall, Nick de Bois, Michael Fabricant, Richard Harrington, Rebecca Harris, Dr Julian Huppert,
	Simon Kirby, John McDonnell, Dr Matthew Offord, Chloe Smith, Henry Smith and Mr Mark Spencer present the Bill.
	Sir John Randall accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 176).

Pension Schemes Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 September 2014 (Pension Schemes Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Steve Webb.)
	Question agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 27
	 — 
	Requirement to wind up scheme in specified circumstances

Steve Webb: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Mr Speaker: With this is will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 9, 44, 49, 56 to 65, and 117.

Steve Webb: I believe that the Bill is in a better state as a result of the two groups of Lords amendments that we shall discuss today. Many of them are Government amendments, designed to tidy things up or deal with errors, and some reflect their lordships’ desire for the affirmative procedure to be used in the case of certain statutory instruments. The amendments are largely technical, but I shall of course be happy to deal with them in more detail if the House wishes me to do so.
	Lords amendments 1 to 9, 49, and 59 to 65 deal with defined ambition and collectives. The Bill contains key reforms to private pensions; encouraging and enabling “defined ambition” or “shared risk” pension schemes and “collective benefits”. In the following amendments, their lordships sought to refine or build on the legislation since it had left the Commons.
	Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 6 introduce minor changes to ensure drafting consistency. Clause 27 provides for regulations to require a scheme providing collective benefits to wind up the whole or part of the scheme, while clause 37 provides for regulations to impose a duty on managers of non-trust-based schemes to act in the best interests of the members when making certain decisions. Both clauses refer to different types of obligation that may apply in relation to the scheme, including those that are part of the scheme—that is, provisions of the scheme—and those contained in legislation that applies to the scheme. The amendments provide for descriptive consistency in the clauses in relation to those different types of obligation.
	Lords amendments 4 and 5 clarify “publication of documents” provisions. Powers in part 2 of the Bill may require trustees or managers of schemes providing collective benefits to have policies in relation to a number of matters, including the factors used to calculate member benefits, the calculation of transfer values, and steps to deal with a deficit or surplus in relation to the target. Clause 32 allows regulations made under part 2, which require trustees or managers to prepare or obtain any document, to include requirements relating to the publication of those documents and the sending of copies to a specified person. Specified persons could include members and regulators.
	The publication of various policies is a key feature of the regime that we are seeking to introduce in order to ensure that it is clear how members’ assets and benefits will be managed or calculated by the scheme. It ensures that there will be transparency in regard to the way in which how collective benefit assets are treated in certain
	circumstances, because there is a less direct relationship than there is in a money purchase benefit when it comes to a member’s entitlement in relation to contributions. We also have regulation-making powers to make certain requirements in relation to the policy. An amendment was required to put it beyond doubt that the provisions of clause 32 also apply to the policies specifically. The amendment ensures there is no possibility of a scheme’s “having” a policy that we cannot require to be published or sent to a specified person.
	Lords amendment 7 puts the meaning of the amendment made by clause 45 beyond doubt. The change to section 67A of the Pensions Act in the clause makes any modification to an occupational pension scheme that would replace a member’s accrued rights with a right to a collective benefit a “protected modification”. Protected modifications can be made only if the member consents. Lords amendment 7 makes it clear that the provision applies only when the existing accrued right is not a right to a collective benefit.
	Lords amendments 8, 9, 59, 60 address an omission in the current legislation. While the changes made by the Bill were being checked, omissions in the Pensions Act 2014 came to light. The amendments that were needed all relate to overriding legislation. When legislation overrides conflicting provision in the scheme rules, there are circumstances in which that legislation needs to be treated as if it were part of the scheme rules. The amendments ensure that overriding requirements made under regulations provided for by schedules 17 and 18 to the Pensions Act will be treated as part of the scheme rules for the purposes of the Pensions Act 2004, in the case of Lords amendments 64 and 65, and subsisting rights provisions in the 1995 Act, in the case of Lords amendments 8 and 9. The amendments provide for consistency and clarity in the way in which the overriding provisions are dealt with.
	Amendment 49 changes the parliamentary procedure that applies to certain regulations under part 2 of the Bill. Part 2 defines the concept of collective benefits and makes provision for regulation-making powers in relation to them. Regulations made under clause 8(3)(b) and clauses 9 to 11 and 21 determine important aspects of the arrangements for “collective benefits”. These powers cover matters such as the exclusion of benefits from the definition of collective benefits, the setting of targets in relation to benefits, the factors to be used in the determination of benefits, and the policy for dealing with a deficit and surplus in relation to the target.
	The effect of amendment 49 is that the regulation-making powers in clause 8(3)(b) and clauses 9 to 11 and 21 will be subject to the affirmative procedure the first time they are used, and will be subject to the negative procedure for subsequent uses. This amendment relates to recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the powers for how collective benefits are defined, and how schemes that provide those benefits will operate.
	Amendment 61 makes a minor correction, replacing a stray reference to “hybrid schemes” that was missed when the Bill was introduced, while amendments 62 to 65 amend the amendments to section 99 of the Pensions Act 2008. Section 99 lists the definitions used. Currently two separate provisions in paragraph 50 of schedule 2
	relate to the definition of “defined benefits scheme”. One adds a new definition drawn from part 1 of this Bill; the other is intended to remove the existing definition. Lords Amendments 62, 64 and 65 replace two provisions with a single provision that substitutes the old definition with the new one. Lords amendment 63 also adds a definition of “collective benefit” to section 99.
	Amendments 44 and 56 relate to public service pension schemes. New information suggests the pension schemes for the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service were misclassified when the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 was originally drafted. When the Act was drafted it was thought that agencies schemes were “public body schemes”, which must close and reform by 2018. The agencies have since been working to reform by April 2016, but we now believe the agencies may be “existing schemes” as defined in the Act. This would mean they have to close and put in place a new scheme by 1 April 2015, like the other main schemes such as for teachers. At this late stage it is not possible to put a new scheme in place by 2015. Without the amendment, the agencies’ staff could be left without lawful pension provision after 2015. Amendment 44 introduces a new clause after clause 77 that prevents this by ensuring the agencies schemes are not included as “existing schemes” in the Act. It ensures reform of the agencies schemes can proceed to the expected timetable of 2016. Amendment 56 to clause 84 enables the new clause to come into force on Royal Assent.
	Amendments 57 and 58 provide general amendments to part 6 of the Bill, to include reference to the Bill in the definition of “pensions legislation” in the Pensions Act 2004, and they come into force from 6 April 2015.
	Amendment 117 relates to pension schemes for fee-paid judges. This amendment is required to fulfil the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report proposal that regulations made under the new section 18A of the Judicial Pensions and Retirements Act 1993 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	These amendments are welcome, and as far as I can see are largely technical, and I commend them to the House.

Gregg McClymont: I thank the Minister for his explanation of amendment 1 and those with which it is grouped. Let me make a number of points. There are two parts of this Bill, and we will come to the second part regarding the way it interacts with the pension budget flexibilities announced in last year’s Budget in a moment. I would like to put on record my thanks to the other place and particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench who have done such a sterling job on what is often a rather technical Bill. I also want to put on record my appreciation for the work done by Baronesses Drake and Hollis who have done so much to make this a better piece of legislation.
	Let me pick the Minister up on a couple of things, particularly around clause 8. He referred in his explanation to clause 8 and the delegated powers contained therein. He will be aware that the debates in the other place focused for some time on the implications of clause 8 because, of course, it is a key and critical provision setting the definition of what are collective benefits, on which the rest of the clauses in part 2, and many of the
	associated delegated powers, depend. That is why it is so critical in its construct and its definition of the delegated powers associated with it.
	In the other place, Baroness Drake made it clear that in her view the power to set regulations under clause 8(3)(b) should be subject to the affirmative procedure because a definition of what is or is not a collective benefit is critical to the whole scope of part 2, which deals with collective benefits. Clause 8(3)(b) would allow the Government to use regulations to avoid schemes being subject to the expense of meeting the detailed requirements set out in clauses 9 to 35 if they are deemed not to be proper collective benefits, but the clause, in granting the Government power to significantly alter by regulation the constituent benefits that are not included in the definition of collective benefits, has the ability to potentially remove members of schemes from the protection of the requirements in the other clauses in part 2.
	The Minister will know that this could have considerable implications for members and the scope of the whole of part 2. The potential of this regulation to remove members from the protections they may already have by being in a designated collective benefit scheme which subsequently a change of regulation deems they are no longer in makes it in our view compelling that this should remain a power that is subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government’s reply to the scrutiny from the Opposition in the other place was to say, “Well, the affirmative procedure will be used in first use, but subsequently not,” but surely this is worth considering. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
	In the other place, the Government gave a detailed response to this critique. As anyone who reads the debates will see, it revolved around the fact that the first use will be by affirmative procedure, but the affirmative procedure might be used in the first instance on something quite straightforward such as that an obvious with-profits policy arrangement is not to be included in collective benefits, but the subsequent use of the regulation under the negative procedure might go to the heart, to something much more fundamental such as an existing collective benefit scheme. We must be aware of the possibility that regulations could be used to weaken the protections scheme members have.
	In response to this specific point, Lord Bourne said in the other place that the negative procedure will still provide a measure of protection, but we know that is not the level of protection that would be provided by the affirmative procedure. This is rather technical, but it does bear upon a very important aspect, which is that moving towards a negative position rather than a positive position through an affirmative vote could be a way in which the protections are weakened—I am sure against the Minister’s inclinations and desires. I would appreciate hearing his observations on that part of the debate in the other place.
	More widely, much of the debate in the other place on this part of the Bill focused on clauses relating to the duties of fiduciaries or managers of the schemes. The Minister and I have had that debate a number of times, but given all the regulatory complication of setting up the independent governance committees and giving them fiduciary responsibilities to monitor the behaviour of
	private pension providers while exempting the private providers themselves, this just seems an unnecessary complication. Pensions are complex enough without making them that much more complex. The responsibility should be put directly on the decision makers in the pensions industry by applying a fiduciary obligation not to them themselves, but to trustees to do the job of governance throughout.
	The Minister will be aware that Professor John Kay, reporting for the Government—and particularly for the yellow-tinged part of the Government, as the Minister will no doubt be aware—was clear that everyone managing someone else’s money or advising on investment should be subject to fiduciary standards of care. I have argued on a number of occasions—and if it is exhausting for me, it must be exhausting for those listening—for extending a clear fiduciary duty to those who have discretion over the management of other people’s money. The Australians have that principle at the heart of their system, and while that system is not perfect, that aspect of it makes it clear unequivocally that conflicts of interest must be resolved in favour of beneficiaries.
	I am not expecting the Minister dramatically to change course at this stage, but I would just point out that the Financial Conduct Authority’s recent investigations into the pensions industry have provided substantial arguments in favour of the proposition that I and others have been advancing. We have now had numerous reports on how the market is not serving pension scheme savers well, whether they have legacy schemes or annuities, owing to a lack of transparency, charges and many other factors.

Steve Webb: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have discussed these issues before. Will he just clarify which of the amendments he is referring to, so that I can respond helpfully to him?

Gregg McClymont: I was referring to clause 8, to which the Minister has also referred, as well as referring to that part of the Bill more widely where it pertains to governance. I am sure that the Minister will be weary of the debates that we have had on these issues, and that he will be keen to set out his current thinking on this aspect of the Bill. He will be aware that this issue is central to his ambitions for collective defined contribution. If it were not, he would not have set out the Bill in this fashion.
	I should like to put on record again my thanks to the other place and in particular those on the Opposition Front Bench, including the good Baroness Drake and the good Baroness Hollis. I am grateful, too, for the constructive spirit in which the Government in the other place have approached the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s observations on the issues relating to delegated powers and, more widely, on the governance of the pension schemes that he rightly wants to make permissible under the Bill.

Steve Webb: I shall respond briefly to the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am grateful to him for his comments, and I should like to extend my thanks to our noble Friends in another place for bringing the Bill forward on our behalf. I also share his respect for his colleagues, Baroness Drake and Baroness Hollis, for their knowledge and their contribution to the debates.
	As the hon. Gentleman says, the issue of whether the affirmative or negative procedure is used in regard to regulations in clause 8 was debated at length. He pointed out that Baroness Drake wanted the affirmative procedure to be used in all cases, while the Government originally planned always to use the negative procedure. The Government then responded to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and agreed that, on first use, the affirmative procedure would be used. Obviously we could say that everything should always be decided through the affirmative procedure, but there is a balance to be struck here. The Committee wanted that, but the Government do not consider that to be appropriate because we sometimes need the flexibility to act quickly if schemes are being inappropriately caught by the collective benefits definition.
	There is always a trade-off in these circumstances. Sometimes in the world of pensions, things happen that we do not expect. People might be in the wrong place, for example, or their rights might be at risk or inappropriately protected, and the Government need to be able to move quickly rather than having to go through the rather lengthy parliamentary process that the affirmative procedure requires.
	We accept, however, that clause 8 is a key provision and I can put on record that it is not our intention for members who are in schemes providing collective benefits, and subject to the provisions, suddenly to lose the important protection that the regulations made under part 2 of the Bill will provide. If the situation were to arise in which those protections were to be taken away, we would want to understand the situation and ensure that it was appropriate and necessary before taking action and laying regulations. As the hon. Gentleman said, even under the negative procedure there is scope for praying against the regulations if a particular concern should arise, and for a debate to take place.
	Most of my experience has been from the Opposition Benches, and during the passage of primary legislation, the Opposition always seem desperate for everything to be conducted under the affirmative procedure while the Government want nothing, but many of the affirmative statutory instruments that the hon. Gentleman and I have dealt with, over the past however many years it has been, have been over in 10 minutes. We get very exercised about the need for affirmative scrutiny, but when we get to that scrutiny, it can occasionally border on the desultory. I hope that we are striking the right balance in recognising that these are important matters and providing affirmative protection on the first use and further parliamentary scrutiny on any subsequent use through the normal processes.
	The hon. Gentleman raised certain wider issues, but I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to go into them in great detail now. I recognise that he wants to strengthen the fiduciary duties of those who oversee pension schemes, and I am sure that that debate will continue. I believe that the new independent governance committees will mark a big step forward from where we have been in the past, and that they will provide scrutiny. I have talked to most of the major insurance companies in the past few weeks, and they are setting up their IGCs now. It is clear that they will be organisations with teeth and with serious people heading them, and that they will be
	listened to. We will also continue to keep the situation under review. With that, I commend Lords amendment 1 to the House.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 47
	 — 
	Pensions guidance

Steve Webb: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 10.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 11 to 43, 45 to 48, 50 to 55 and 66 to 116.

Steve Webb: This group of amendments relates primarily to the new pensions freedoms announced by the Chancellor in the Budget last year, which will generally come into effect on 6 April this year. I shall begin with the pension guidance and guarantee, now known as Pension Wise, covered by amendment 10 and amendments 66 to72. The Government intend that all those who stand to benefit directly from the new pensions flexibilities provided by the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014 should have access to guidance. The amendments to clause 47 and schedule 3 are technical amendments to ensure that that is the case.
	The amendments adjust the definition of pensions guidance in new sections 333A and 137FB of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to extend pensions guidance to survivors of members who have flexible benefits, rather than just the members of pension schemes. This is needed because in some circumstances pension schemes may provide benefits to survivors of members of the scheme other than insurance-based products or cash lump sums—that is, flexible benefits—without their becoming members of the scheme.
	Amendments 11 to 18 and amendment 50 provide advice safeguards. Clauses 48 and 51 were amended in the Lords via Government amendment. These contain the provisions creating the advice safeguard, which requires schemes to check that financial advice has been received before an individual exchanges their safeguarded rights for those that can be taken flexibly. Clause 48 makes provision for Great Britain, while clause 51 makes corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. Amendments 11 and 15 improved the drafting of clauses 48 and 51, while amendments 12 and 16 ensure that the requirement to take advice also applies when a member takes an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum from benefits that are safeguarded.
	On Report in the other place, a second group of amendments to those clauses were made in response to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Amendments 13 and 17 specifically provide for the only exception to the advice requirement that is intended to be in effect by 6 April—namely, an exemption from checking that advice has been received in the case of those with safeguarded wealth of £30,000 and below. Amendment 50 provides that regulations creating this exception are subject to
	the negative procedure, while regulations creating any other type of exception are subject to the affirmative procedure.
	Amendment 14 provides more detail on the nature of the “appropriate independent advice” that is to be required under the safeguard. It provides that “appropriate independent advice” must be given by an “authorised independent adviser”, who has permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to carry out a regulated activity specified in regulations. The Financial Conduct Authority sets out the standards for regulated activities in its rules, and that will allow it to set the standards for advice provided under the advice safeguard. Amendment 18 makes corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
	Let me now deal with amendments 19 to 21, 23 to 25, and 38 to 43, which are amendments to clauses 55 and 56, consequential on the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014. They allow a person to leave any remaining money purchase funds to a nominee or a successor. Schemes will be able to offer both nominees and successors a drawdown fund, so they need to be included in the clauses which deal with such arrangements. Amendments to clauses 60 and 61 do the same thing for legislation covering Northern Ireland, while amendments to clauses 72 to 74 make small changes to the definitions of terms used in part 4 of the Bill.
	Let me now deal with amendments 22, 26 and 73 to 116, which are technical amendments to reflect the extension of the statutory right to transfer benefits and to ensure that the transfer process continues to operate smoothly after the requirement to take “appropriate independent advice” comes into force in April. Without these amendments there is a risk that the new transfer rights would not operate as intended after the new flexibilities come into force. Schedule 4 of the Bill amends the existing transfer rights provisions contained in part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to give scheme members a statutory right to transfer a particular category of benefits, and gives scheme members with flexible benefits a statutory right to transfer these rights up to and beyond their scheme’s normal retirement age. Amendments 73, 92, 94, 96 and 115 would make consequential amendments to reflect numbering changes made elsewhere in schedule 4.
	Amendments 22, 82 and 83 ensure that clause 55 and regulations under clauses 56 and 57 override any pension scheme rules which conflict with the statutory right to transfer overriding provisions for the purposes of the definition of “scheme rules”. These provisions amend the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2004, while amendments 26, 105 and 106 make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. Amendment 75 replicates existing powers in the 1993 Act and will be used to preserve the effect of existing regulations under those powers, while amendment 98 makes identical provisions for Northern Ireland legislation.
	Amendments 76 and 78 provide powers to extend the period within which a member who has received a statement of entitlement must take the cash equivalent of their accrued rights, and for the right to take the cash equivalent to lapse. Amendment 80 provides a power to extend the time in which the trustees of a scheme must
	do what the member requires. Amendments 88 and 89 make similar provision to extend time for pension credit members, and for trustees to act on members’ instructions. Amendments 99, 101, 103, 111 and 112 make similar amendments to the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.
	Amendments 79 and 102 make changes to section 98(1) of the 1993 Act and clarify that a member’s right to take a cash equivalent falls away where the trustees’ duty to carry out the member’s wishes is extinguished because they have been unable to confirm that the member has taken appropriate independent advice. Amendments 81, 86, 93 and 95 ensure that the definitions of scheme rules in the 1993 Act and the 2004 Act work for personal pension schemes. Amendments 82, 83 and 105 ensure that the definitions of “scheme rules” in the 1993 and 2004 Acts also apply for personal pensions, while taking account of any provisions that override these rules. Amendments 104, 109 and 116 do the same for Northern Ireland. Amendment 87 inserts a power to disapply the right of a pension credit member to transfer their pension credit rights in relation to prescribed descriptions of persons. Amendment 110 makes a similar amendment to Northern Ireland legislation. The remaining amendments in this group make a number of drafting, technical and consequential amendments to schedule 4 of the Bill.
	Amendments 27 to 37 relate to public service scheme transfers. These are technical changes to improve drafting and ensure that the new safeguard applies where it should. The remaining amendments 45 to 48 and 51 to 55 are general amendments to part 6 of the Bill and are what are often known as the “back of the Bill” provisions. Amendments to clauses 80 and 81 would extend provisions to Northern Ireland, while the amendment to clause 84 would ensure that pension flexibilities provisions come into force at Royal Assent. I hope that what I have said has been helpful, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister raced through his text, much to the chagrin of the whole House I am sure, as we were enjoying it so much. Let me pick up on a couple of issues. We are dealing with the part of the Bill that has created some complexities because, to put it politely, it dovetails with the 2014 Act. If we were being less kind, we would say that some tensions are created because we cannot examine this Bill while, side by side, scrutinising that Act. I put that point on the record, although it has been discussed previously.
	Lords amendments 13, 14, 17, 18 and 50 refer to the much-discussed guidance that those eligible to access their pension pots from April will be offered. The Minister mentioned Government amendments being tabled in the other place. Of course, the amendments are welcome, both as a necessary second line of defence and because they show that the Government are listening to the Opposition in this place and in the other place, and to the campaign led by interested pensions organisations outside the House. Why is it so important to have that second line of defence? As the Government accept, it is simply because it is one thing to offer guidance online from gov.uk, in person from citizens advice bureaux and by telephone through the Pensions Advisory Service, but what happens when an individual discusses buying a product from a provider is another thing entirely.
	Much of the debate on this Bill and other pensions Bills in this Parliament has revolved around that issue. According to the FCA studies and a variety of sources, decisions often end up being much more in the interest of those selling the product than those buying it. The Government have recognised that when someone comes to consider buying a product, the provider must check that they have received the appropriate guidance, either from the services I mentioned or from other sources. It is welcome that they have accepted the argument of the Opposition and others on putting in place a second line of defence, which the Minister calls the “advice safeguard”.
	That brings us to one question that relates to part of the 2014 Act, as well as this Bill: how do we ensure that individuals are equipped to make what at times are complex financial decisions about what to do with their retirement income? Much of the legislation pertaining to this important aspect lies in the 2014 Act and, on one level, is outwith the bounds of what we are discussing today. But it is important to put on the record that significant questions remain about how the guidance guarantee will work from April. That view has been heard repeatedly from those in the pensions world and I am sure that the Minister, if he is not having sleepless nights about it, is paying close attention to it.
	The impact of the new flexibilities, which will be introduced from April, on eligibility for means-tested benefits was the subject of much discussion in the other place. This pertains to the guidance amendments and, more widely, to the 2014 Act, which of course goes hand in hand with the Bill. Baroness Hollis asked a series of important questions of the Minister in the other place and the Government about how this new system of pension flexibilities will work in harness with existing eligibility for benefits and, more widely, with Department for Work and Pensions benefit rules.
	I have to say that it is not that reassuring to hear from the Minister in the other place that all will be revealed before April. As things stand, there is still no clarity over how the new flexibilities will interact with DWP benefit rules, which will concern the whole House.
	Let me give three examples, the first of which is on income. Let us say that, at 56, a person has a modest wage of £20,000. They rent privately and get housing benefit as they have minimal savings. They have a small pension pot of £25,000 and, after April, they take £15,000 of that pension pot to pay off debts or buy a new car. Up to 25% of that pot—some £6,000—is obviously tax free under pension rules, but will count as income against their means-tested benefits under DWP rules. Above that £6,000, they will pay income tax as well as lose benefit on the rest of the £15,000. Surely it is essential that anyone on means-tested benefits at the age of 56 knows what the impact will be of accessing their pension pot in line with the new flexibilities after April. I suspect that most people are simply not aware of that interaction. Something will need to be done rapidly to ensure that that kind of interaction and detriment are understood.
	That is a simple example, but what about capital? What happens if, instead of accessing their pension pot to count as income, a person lets it sit there as capital, fully accessible when they need it, but not yet taken—a bit like an untouched ISA, as Baroness Hollis said. Up
	until now, inaccessible pension pots, which cannot be accessed under current rules, have, quite sensibly, been ignored. They do not count against the DWP’s capital savings rules, whereas other accessible incomes and savings such as ISAs do. That is another issue. In the debate in the other place, the Government said that they would clarify that matter shortly. But it is already nearly the end of February, and the rules come into place in April. It is not unfair to suggest that the Government are really running up against time here. Individuals need to understand the potential impact on their eligibility for benefits if they access their pension pots.
	Let us say, for example, that someone is earning £25,000 a year, and have £25,000 in ISAs and £25,000 in their pension pot. They have injured their back and need to stop work and want means-tested benefits, but their £25,000 of ISAs savings debar them. What do they do? It is a no-brainer, as Baroness Hollis observed. They cycle their ISAs into a pension pot and shelter them. When they retire next year, at 56, they will get full means-tested benefits and, potentially, the same access to their savings that they had when half of them were ISAs. It is great for that individual, but for the rest of us, as taxpayers, it means bigger benefit bills. In the other place, the Government did not provide a compelling answer to that problem.
	Finally, social care is means tested. At normal retirement age, a person’s pension pot—even if they have not touched it—is treated as if it is giving a notional annuity income. That notional income is included when assessing how much a person should pay in social care. Pension pots are not sheltered. Let us take another example. A person of 55, who may have built up a modest pension pot at work, has broken their back and needs social care. Although their pension pot is fully accessible, as if they were 65, their pension is not taken into account for social care means testing. If someone gets injured at 55, they pay little or nothing for their social care. If they live a little longer, as we hope, their pension is taken into account and their social care bill soars. How is that fair? Baroness Hollis suggested that it was age discrimination. How can we expect people to understand such contrary rules?
	The Government might have compelling responses to those hypothetical case studies, but so far they have not provided any enlightenment on how the pension flexibilities contained in the Budget will interact with eligibility for DWP benefits.
	In the other place, the Government said that they intend to come forward “soon” with explanations of how the Budget reforms will interact with DWP rules. But time is marching on. We are very close to those flexibilities “going live”, and it is incumbent on the Government to let us all know how the reforms interact with DWP benefit rules.
	The issues and amendments pertaining to the second part of this Bill are necessarily related to the Pensions Schemes Bill. The Minister will not be able to provide us with all the answers. One problem is that the questions that one feels compelled to direct at the Minister of State for Pensions would be better directed at Treasury Ministers. That is something that has emerged during the course of these two parallel Bills.
	I am sure that the Minister would agree that the interaction with DWP benefit rules is crucial. Unless the Government very rapidly explain the situation, significant numbers of people might undergo detriment.
	Let me end on a note of consensus. The second line of defence, which came about as a result of the great work of the Opposition in the other place, has been accepted by the Government and will be welcomed by Members from all parts of the House. I rest my case.

Steve Webb: I hope that I can respond helpfully to the two sets of issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I thank him for using the attractive word “dovetailing” to describe what is happening between DWP and HM Treasury legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the second line of defence. I think that there might have been some confusion in what he said. I apologise if the speed with which I went through my remarks put him off the scent. I had assumed that nothing I said would affect what he was going to say, which is why I went so quickly. To clarify: the second line of defence, which is the requirement on providers to ask searching questions of people choosing to do things with their pension pot, is not in the Bill at all. The amendments that refer to advice—as in independent financial advice and regulated advice—are the safeguards for people who are transferring from a defined benefit pension into a defined contribution pension with a view to accessing the flexibilities. The Bill requires them to have taken independent financial advice, and the amendments help to specify exactly what that is. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not confused. The amendments relate to the advice safeguard, which is about things such as DB to DC transfers. But he is right that the issue of a so-called second line of defence is an important one. The Government have listened. We anticipate that the Financial Conduct Authority will bring forward its detailed rules on how that should work in practice and we will be working with the trust-based pensions sector to do the same through the pensions regulator. I agree that those who raise such important issues both within and beyond the House deserve credit for doing so. I am grateful to him for the credit that he gave to the Government for listening to those concerns.
	The second set of issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned were those raised by Baroness Hollis in another place about the interaction with means-tested benefits. He will know, I hope, that my noble colleagues met Baroness Hollis before Third Reading in the Lords, and another meeting is planned to ensure that her concerns are properly addressed. I can tell him that it is
	largely business as usual. The intention is that the principles of the current rules relating to the treatment of pension funds will remain in place after April 2015. Obviously, we are in a new world, and we will have to consider carefully the impact of pension flexibilities and freedoms on income-related benefits and social care, but the Government want to ensure that someone’s decision to use a flexible pension product does not have a significant effect on how their means-tested benefits or social care charges are assessed.
	The hon. Gentleman asked one specific question. I might have some cash in an ISA that the Government would account as capital, whereas if it were in a pension fund they might not, so why not just shove it into a pension fund? It is fine for someone to transfer money from an ISA into a pension pot for the sole purpose of improving their retirement provision, as we do not mind people putting money into a pension to retire on, but if they have done it with the intention of increasing their benefit entitlement we can still take account of the money. That mirrors existing provisions. In other words, if someone has some money in the bank, blows it on a foreign holiday or a sports car and comes along and claims benefit without the capital, one thing we will ask is where the money went. We have deprivation of capital rules so that if someone has artificially engineered their finances to get within the scope of means-tested benefits, we can deem them still to have the money. In the example the hon. Gentleman gave, if someone takes their ISA balance and flips it into a pension simply so they can get more pension credit we can simply say that we will treat them as though they still had the cash.
	We think it is right to treat ISAs and pensions differently. ISAs are immediately accessible and are not long-term savings vehicles, so we think that that distinction is important. I can confirm that we will continue to have our conversations with the noble Baroness to ensure that we have addressed her concerns, but the spirit of what we are doing is that of business as usual, with the same broad approach as we had before the reforms were introduced. I hope that that responds to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I commend Lords amendment 10 to the House.
	Lords amendment 10 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 11 to 117 agreed to.

House of Commons Commission Bill (Allocation of Time)

William Hague: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the House of Commons Commission Bill:
	Timetable
	(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting.
	(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	(c) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
	(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker or Chairman shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker or Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
	(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(8) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
	(9) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8).
	(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(c) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith:
	(i) a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
	(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith:
	(i) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
	(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
	(f) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with
	the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(g) As soon as the House has:
	(i) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or
	(ii) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	(10) (a) any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
	(11) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10).
	(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(c) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with
	the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	(12) (a) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
	(b) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(c) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(d) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), the Chair shall:
	(i) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(ii) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(e) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	(14) (a) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
	(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	(17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	(18) The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(19) (a) Sub-paragraph (b) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(b) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	(21) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
	(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
	The motion provides time for the House of Commons Commission Bill to be considered today. It guarantees up to six hours of debate, with up to four hours on Second Reading and a further two hours in Committee and on the remaining stages. How much of that time is used in considering the Bill is of course a matter for the House, and it does not look as if such restrictions on debate will turn out to be necessary, but importantly the motion also provides for us to consider all stages of the Bill today. In view of the non-contentious nature of the Bill, the absence of any amendments, and the important business that follows, I am hopeful of swift progress.

Eleanor Laing: Swift progress indeed.
	Question put and agreed to.

House of Commons Commission Bill

Second Reading

William Hague: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I hope not to detain the House for long in considering a very short and, I think, widely supported Bill. The House is familiar with the background to the Bill, which arises from the report of the House of Commons Governance Committee, which was established following the halting of the recruitment process for a new Clerk of the House in September last year. The Committee’s report was fully debated in the House on 22 January. As I emphasised during that debate, the Chair and members of the Committee did an admirable job. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in particular, and to the members of the Committee from both sides of the House who worked with him, because they successfully reconciled a number of different views and presented the House with a coherent package that clearly, as shown in our debate in January, commands its confidence.
	Most of the Committee’s recommendations are for the House to take forward in other ways and as a member of the House of Commons Commission I can assure the House that that is exactly what is happening. The Commission has published three updates so far on progress in implementing the recommendations and will continue to keep the House informed. A very small number of recommendations from the Governance Committee that relate to the Commission require legislative action, hence the need for this Bill.
	The House of Commons Commission is established under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. To meet the recommendations of the Governance Committee, the Bill has three core provisions, all of which take the form of amendments to the 1978 Act. First, the Bill increases the number of Back-Bench members of the Commission from three to four. That will allow for a wider range of views across the House to be represented and will reduce the likelihood of the Government inadvertently finding themselves with a majority on the Commission.
	Secondly, the Bill provides for the appointment of two external members and two officials to the Commission. The appointment of these additional members is designed to provide a wider perspective to support the Commission’s work and to embed the closer integration between setting the strategic direction and the implementation of resulting policy decisions that the Committee called for. The evidence to the Governance Committee suggested that the link between the current Management Board, which is to become the Executive Committee, and the Commission needed to be strengthened. This amendment will provide for that to happen. As a start in that direction, the existing external members of the Management Board have been invited to attend meetings of the Commission and they have started doing so.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for finding the time to make this modest change. Can he update the House on
	whether it will be possible to have the Clerk and Director General in place at the beginning of the new Parliament so that these provisions can take effect immediately?

William Hague: It should certainly be possible to have the Clerk in place. The recruitment process is well under way and the period for applications closed last week, on 16 February, and an interview panel has been established. It is very much our intention on the Commission that a new Clerk of the House will be appointed before Dissolution. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Governance Committee recommended that the Clerk should be in place and in a position to be one of those determining the appointment of the Director General, so there is a sequence to this. The process of recruiting the Director General has also begun, but given that Dissolution is only 21 House of Commons days away, that will not be completed before Dissolution. It will be well advanced, however, and it will be up to the new Commission, early in the next Parliament, including the new Clerk, to complete the appointment of the new Director General.
	Thirdly, the Bill adds to the functions of the Commission a specific requirement to set the strategic priorities and objectives for the services provided by the House Departments. It is important that the Commission is given this specific responsibility in view of the number of different bodies involved in the governance of the House. This amendment to the 1978 Act will place direct responsibility on the Commission to provide strategic leadership for the services provided by the Departments of the House. It will then be for the Commission to set priorities and the House administration to respond accordingly.
	As a member of the Commission and, I think, like all other members of the Commission, I am very supportive of the changes proposed, which should make the governance of the House more representative, more transparent and more cohesive. We can say more about the individual provisions when we move into Committee, but I think they are straightforward and fully in line with the Governance Committee’s proposals. Indeed, we have worked with the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, with the Opposition and with officials from across the House to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the Committee’s report. I am particularly grateful for the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in taking this forward so rapidly.
	It is my firm expectation that with the support of the House today the Bill can progress through both Houses before Dissolution so as to ensure that the new Parliament can benefit from the governance of the new Commission at the earliest possible stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Thomas Docherty: I begin by offering the apologies of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who is out of the country today. The task of representing Her Majesty’s Opposition therefore falls to me this afternoon.
	As the Leader of the House said, we support the Bill. We thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and his Committee for the work they put in and the speed with which they produced their report, which has allowed us to make these straightforward alterations ahead of schedule.
	For those who are not familiar with Commons procedures, it is worth touching on the role of the Commission. The Commission is not like a Select Committee: it does not have the powers of a Select Committee or perform a scrutiny function; it does not summon witnesses or produce reports. That role is performed by the Finance and Services Committee—to become the Finance Committee—and the Administration Committee. The Commission is a governance body. Clause 2 states:
	“The Commission must from time to time set strategic priorities and objectives in connection with services provided by the House Departments.”
	As the House of Commons Governance Committee highlighted, one of the defects in recent years has been that the Commission did not necessarily understand its own role, and it certainly was not understood by the wider membership of the House and beyond, so we welcome not only the changes being made but the new provision which, for the first time, I think, sets out explicitly the role of the Commission to make strategic choices.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about the responsibilities of the Commission and how it will work, may I ask whether it is still envisaged that the commissioners will be elected, and if so, will that be by the whole House or by the individual parties?

Thomas Docherty: I will come on to that shortly.
	One of the major challenges facing Parliament when we—or perhaps our successors—return in May is the need in the next Parliament to make a decision on restoration and renewal. I pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for their work on tackling the early stages of thinking on restoration and renewal. Restoration and renewal is not optional. We will have to spend money—taxpayers’ money—and Parliament must take huge decisions on the appropriate timetable for carrying out those works and how to ensure best value for taxpayers. The Commission will have a crucial role in providing leadership, so it is absolutely right that we ensure that it accurately reflects the views of the House. It is also important that the Commission has external members who will be able to provide strategic advice. It is no criticism of Members of this House, but not all of us have business experience or are used to grappling with some of the issues that the Commission will have to deal with.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will understand that it is not for me to speak for other parties and their internal processes. He is probably slightly more familiar than I with how the Conservative parliamentary party operates. It is clear that two of the members will be the Chairs of the Administration and Finance Committees, so that is a matter for post-election arrangements. The question was asked during the debate on the Governance Committee’s report, so let me say clearly that the Opposition do not believe that the commissioners who are not Select Committee Chairs should be paid an additional sum to carry out this work, in part because we do not
	believe it is appropriate in the current climate and our constituents would not regard it as sensible, and in part because serving on the Commission should not be more onerous than being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee or, indeed, the Finance and Administration Committees. What is important is getting people who come forward and are selected by their party because they have a particular interest or knowledge.
	We welcome the progress made on the appointment of a Director General. The Leader of the House is right to say that it is necessary to complete that process after the election, but we do not see that as a significant obstacle to the Bill’s progress.

Oliver Heald: I start by repeating my thanks to the Leader of the House for finding time to bring this short Bill before the House. I know it is never easy at this point in the parliamentary cycle, but it is important that the newly composed Commission proposed by the Governance Committee can start work immediately after the general election, and the Bill will enable that to happen. We will have a new governance regime for the new Parliament—something that those of us who served on the Committee were keen to achieve.
	I am glad that the proposals outlined in the report are being implemented following the debate on 22 January, particularly because there was such a warm welcome from all parts of the House for the report. The Bill will help to clarify the role of the Commission as the place where the decisions on what happens in our part of Parliament are made.
	Our Committee found that many hon. Members feel disconnected from the administration of the House, and our proposals will change that. In the membership, first, the number of parliamentarians will rise, with the ex officio members supplemented by four rather than three Back Benchers. My understanding is that they will be elected—perhaps the Leader of the House can confirm that—but with party balance in mind, of course, so that we do not accidentally end up with one party predominant on the Commission. Secondly, the external members will bring to the Commission experience of business practice, both public sector and private, which I am sure will be welcome. Finally, having the management on the Commission—the Clerk of the House and the Director General—will mean that those who have to implement the decisions are part of the decision-making process, which should tighten things up considerably.
	I think that those improvements will maintain the important presence of the political parties and the Speaker, but increase the influence of Back Benchers because of the fact of election. The portfolios that have been suggested—assuming that that proposal goes ahead—will ensure that not only the House Committees but other important interests are represented at the top and fully understood there. The presence of the Clerk and the Director General will connect up the whole system far better. Hopefully, the changes will strengthen the House of Commons Commission, make it more responsive to Members, closer to its administration and more in tune with best practice.
	We heard evidence that the Commission should be strengthened because it sometimes lacks the authority and capability to provide consistent strategic direction, and it is less good at taking a long-term view or setting a strategic framework for the House as a whole, rather than in response to events. That is important and is, in a way, a structural issue. Administration and governance of the House should have a longer term perspective, but Members, by our nature, tend to concentrate on one Parliament at a time—very wisely and not unnaturally, I think, given that the electorate do the same thing—and this can lead to essential works being put off time after time. At some point, the nettle has to be grasped, and the upcoming restoration and renewal programme is an example of precisely that. The new strategic role for the Commission is a key step in providing for better long-term governance of the House.
	This is a short Bill, so this will be a short speech. I just wanted to say that this was the first time in 40 years that Members had considered these issues. I pay tribute to the Chair and the Governance Committee membership at large, because we worked very hard on this. I shall be proud to see the Bill become law and our recommendations put into effect. I join in commending the Bill to the House.

Jack Straw: I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Leader of the House for the way in which from the establishment of the Committee he embraced its work. Inevitably, when a Select Committee dominated by Back Benchers comes forward with reforming recommendations, there is an inbuilt tendency—there certainly was when I was sitting in his place—to think, “This hasn’t been invented here. We ought to look at all these proposals with great scepticism and no doubt we can improve them.” In one area the right hon. Gentleman and our Front-Bench did indeed propose improvements in respect of the recommendations in the report. He, together with my hon. Friend the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, simply said that this was an agreed all-party report which appeared to make sense, and that he therefore committed himself, along with my hon. Friend, to implement it.
	There is an irony about the way in which things come up in this place. The provenance of the Committee was—I put it delicately—a difference of emphasis regarding the future official leadership of the House, which was dominating the news at the time. Out of that came the House of Commons Governance Committee, and I am extremely grateful to the House for deciding that I should chair it. I was extraordinarily fortunate in having on the Committee seven other Members drawn from a range of parties who showed astonishing dedication and commitment to working, in some cases, three days out of the four that we have here each week, from mid-October through to December in order to achieve the outcome. Well, we got there, and I think it was to everybody’s advantage that we had the report out before Christmas, rather than afterwards.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that we got there thanks to his amazing chairmanship. It was amazing to see so sophisticated and capable an operator steer us through,
	when we had a lot of differences of emphasis on the Committee at the beginning. I hope he does not mind my interrupting him to put that on the record.

Jack Straw: Not at all—least of all today.
	Those of us who are now Hegel and Marx—at least a bit, in my case; I hope I do not offend the hon. Gentleman—can genuinely say that a dialectical process took place in the Committee, where there was thesis, antithesis and synthesis from a variety of sources. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who was energetic in the Committee and was not going to let anything go, but out of that energy—sometimes it felt as though I had a terrier locked on my ankle!—we got a better report.
	One of the things that emerged during our inquiry was the opacity of the current arrangements for running this place—the lack of connection between the Commission and everything else underneath. One key Committee, the Administration Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), was in some kind of limbo. It did not have executive powers, although everybody thought it had. It had to negotiate with others. It had a membership that was put there principally by the Whips. In my view, had it not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and two or three others almost exclusively had sat through the Committee over the past five years, it could not have operated at all. That was one indication of the opacity and less than optimal way in which these arrangements operated.
	There were other such indications—for instance, the fact that the non-executive members who give advice to the administration of the House were on the Management Board, not on the Commission, which is a slightly eccentric way of doing these things. We had very good evidence, including from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents a large chunk of Scotland. I may say parenthetically that he and I were having a conversation about the difficulty of getting to his constituency. As we know, he is Viscount—these days, Mr—Thurso. He was talking about the fact that he would get an aeroplane to Inverness and then would drive. I asked what would happen if he were to go by train. He said, “Well, I would get a sleeper to Inverness and then another train.” I asked, in my naiveté, “Which station?”, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied, “Thurso, of course.” It must be reassuring to have a station named after you.
	To return to the Bill, the right hon. Member for that large chunk of Scotland has chaired the Finance Committee. He has also been a member of the Commission. That was a very good exemplar for us to build on.
	There are many recommendations of the Committee that do not need legislation; these recommendations do, and I believe strongly that with these changes we will have an administration for future Parliaments that is better and more effective than it is at present.
	On the question whether the four Back-Bench commissioners should be paid, Members must consider that in the next Parliament, and do so rapidly. I am clear that if at least two of those Members have executive responsibilities for chairing important Committees, they must receive the same kind of emoluments as any other
	Chairman; otherwise, given the amount of time that will have to be devoted to these positions and the fact that they will be much more public, as it were, within the firmament of the Commons, people of serious calibre will not be attracted to undertake them. We do not want these positions and the other two on the Commission for Back Benchers to be seen as some sort of consolation prize for those who have failed to be elected to the chairmanship of some apparently prestigious subject Select Committee. That is extremely important, and I hope the Whips will bear that in mind, not least when they come to the timetabling.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it depends to some extent what portfolios are given to the other two as to whether one would want to see these as paid positions? If, for example, one of those posts was to play an important role on the restoration and renewal project or to play a very active role with visitors to the House, it could be an onerous position that might require that.

Jack Straw: I accept that entirely. This needs to be looked at in detail as soon as the new Parliament is assembled.
	With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

John Thurso: The Bill proves that great things come in small packages. Brevity in a Bill can lead to excellent clarity of statute, a model that anybody forming a Government could look to follow in the future.
	I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for having been able to bring the Bill before the House so that the provisions can be put into statute to enable the next Parliament, we hope, to get a flying start as the new Commission is set up.
	I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and others who paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as I did when we debated these matters. May I assure him that I am called after the railway station, not the railway station after me? It is an excellent report which found an extremely good way forward and has found favour with everybody.
	I should make it clear that I do not make these short remarks in my position as the spokesman for the Commission. The Commission’s position is set out in the written statements that I have issued in my name as the spokesman. That makes it clear that progress is being made to have the Clerk in place before Dissolution; and because of the sequential nature, as recommended by the Committee, the Director General recruitment has started but cannot be completed until that recruitment is in place, and that will be an early order of business for the new Parliament. Other than that, I would say that the Commission has sought simply to give effect to everything that was set out in the report as much as it can and as quickly as it can.
	Speaking personally, I am delighted to see the Bill before the House. I do not want to go into any of the detail particularly. It does the important job of putting
	into statute the provisions that needed to be changed in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, and we had the chance to debate the other matters earlier.
	One small regret is that we did not find room in the Bill for an enabling clause, which would have permitted a future Commission to look at bringing the administration estimate and the Members Estimate Committee together, which was a sort of recommendation—a “think about” recommendation—that would have been useful at a later stage. However, I completely accept that, in order to get the Bill through quickly, that was a provision that had to wait for another time. My worry is that House of Commons Bills do not come along that often, so it may be a very long time before there is a possibility to do that.
	The only other point that I would make, since it has been mentioned both by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House and others who have spoken, concerns election remuneration. It is important that these posts be elected by the whole House so that the whole House has confidence in each of the Members. I also feel, as I mentioned before, that the four posts should be equally remunerated. The reason for that is that I have not the slightest doubt that both of the posts that are currently not filled by Chairmen of Committees, where there is no question on this, will end up with Cabinet-style portfolios, and should end up with Cabinet-style portfolios. One of the most obvious places for this to happen is around human resources, change and diversity. It is an area that we do not scrutinise particularly well. One of the commissioners should take specific responsibility for that, and one of the commissioners who has done so extremely well in this Parliament would have been the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). There is a strong case for using commissioners—not saying that commissioners should not do work, should just turn up and make some decisions, but actually saying that this is a new Commission, operating in a different way, and these commissioners should be used to undertake work.
	Apart from that point, this is an excellent Bill that puts into effect the recommendations of the Governance Committee, and I, too, commend it to the House.

Alan Haselhurst: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for my late arrival. The business of the House has obviously moved on faster than I anticipated. I am sure if I was sitting once more where you are now sitting I would have frowned very much upon someone trying to speak at this point, but as proceedings are moving along swiftly, I hope I might be indulged.

Eleanor Laing: For the avoidance of doubt, of course the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience and so much to contribute, is hereby indulged.

Alan Haselhurst: You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I join in complimenting the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and the shadow Deputy Leader of the
	House on co-operating with colleagues to ensure, first, that there was a good report, and then that it was brought forward so swiftly. In the last four and a half years, I have identified weaknesses and inconsistencies in the management of the business side of the House, which the strengthened Commission will help to overcome. I have detected great weaknesses in the connection between the decisions made by the Commission and the political parties in the House, and also weakness in communication between Members of the House as a whole. The way that the Committee has recommended that the Commission be composed in the future addresses all those weaknesses, and enables us to have a more coherent system of management, which I hope will be more easily explained to a very diverse audience in the House, not just among Members but among the other important people who have passes in the House and who serve us in various ways. We may look forward with some confidence to the implementation of the plan that has been presented to the House, and I have every confidence in it.

Thomas Docherty: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to two points made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I may have picked him up incorrectly. The Opposition do not think that the Commission members who are not Chairs of Select Committees should be elected by the whole House. It is a matter for the parties to elect them. If I can extend the principle of Select Committees, members of Select Committees are not elected by the whole House; they are elected by their parties. Their role on the Commission will be to represent, as the Leader of the House has already said, the views of those parties. As Members of Parliament, it would not be democratic for Labour Members to have a say on who represents the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or the minority parties. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, the parliamentary Labour party position is that it would be for those individual parties.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the finance commissioner, for example, should be elected by the whole House, even if he is not saying that the commissioners without portfolio should be elected by the whole House?

Thomas Docherty: That is something that we will look at. My position is that the current arrangements for the Select Committee Chairs have worked well in this Parliament and they should continue in the next Parliament.
	It is critical that there is no ambiguity about the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We do not believe that the other commissioners should be paid, because the work is no more onerous than being a member of the Finance and Services Committee or the Administration Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they do not receive payment. My understanding is that the Commission meets once a month and it would be slightly strange if the only member of the Commission who was not receiving an additional payment ended up being the shadow Leader
	of the House, because the shadow Cabinet are not paid. The Commission itself does not have an onerous meeting schedule—

John Thurso: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, I just fundamentally disagree with it. It is not in the Bill, so we can leave it until later.

Thomas Docherty: Perhaps that is a sign of our democracy at work.
	As I say, that is the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We are absolutely clear. We want to see more cost-saving measures. We welcome the steps that the Commission is taking in looking at the shared services. That was something that came out of the Governance Committee’s report. We are clear: my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I have said on more than one occasion that it is absurd that we continue to have two catering operations and two research operations. We already have shared services. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this. In the next Parliament the goal should be to reduce the costs of our democracy, not to drive them up further.

Tom Brake: In responding to the Second Reading debate on behalf of the Government, I want to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, particularly for their positive comments about the Bill. I am grateful for the support offered by members of the Governance Committee and the official Opposition. A number of Members have raised individual points, to which I will seek to respond.
	First, I again thank the Opposition spokesman for setting out in his opening remarks the role of the Commission, from which we could all benefit—Members of Parliament and the wider public. He also set out his party’s position on the election of commissioners. I hope that he would agree that that is not a matter for the Bill. It therefore does not set out how the process should be carried out.
	We then heard from the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who stressed the importance of connecting the Commission with Members. I think that we all share his hope that the Commission will be more responsive, more in tune and more in keeping with best practice. I agree with his point about the Commission not always being good at providing direction. The specific function added by the Bill will provide greater clarity on the leadership of the House, and the new membership will ensure that the leadership is fully representative of Members and staff.
	We then heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Like all Members who have spoken, I would like to thank him once again for the key role he played in the House of Commons Governance Committee, and for his willingness to do something that has not been done for 40 years. I think that he put it very delicately when he said that there was perhaps a difference of emphasis on the issue of the leadership of the House—how very diplomatic of him. However, he went on to underline in slightly less diplomatic terms some of the less functional, or possibly even dysfunctional, aspects of the Commission.
	The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of pay for commissioners. Clearly that is a matter for the House, rather than the Bill, but I am sure that those arrangements, whatever they might be in future, will take account of the public’s desire for the cost of politics not to go up. Although, I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, which is that if all the commissioners are paid, the shadow Leader of the House would be left in a rather impecunious position, as the only member who would not receive a salary for the role.

Thomas Docherty: For the avoidance of doubt, that was not my main argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a significant work load, and my point was that there was no suggestion that the shadow Leader of the House—I can say this because she is safely out of the country—is seeking to be paid. If the logic is based on the work load, I should point out that her work load is significantly higher than that of other commissioners.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although I must say that it was not needed, because I had not suggested that the shadow Leader of the House had primed him to make a bid for additional funding for her post.
	We then heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). With regard to his claim that he was named after the railway station, rather than the other way around, I say, “Nice try.” I am sure that is not entirely factual. I would like to thank him for the key role he plays on the
	Commission, which is important for all Members of Parliament, and he does it very effectively. We always enjoy listening to his responses to questions on the Commission, particularly on the subject of mice, on which he is an expert. He rightly underlined that the commissioners should have specific responsibilities. Renovation and restoration is one area where there is a very clear opening for someone to undertake or be involved in a very substantial piece of work.
	My right hon. Friend also highlighted the fact that there is no enabling clause to bring together the Members estimate and the administration estimate. I accept that that is worth further consideration, but getting it right will require a little more time and we do not want to hold up the Bill by trying to pursue it. We have already touched on the subject of whether the extra members should be paid and the position that would leave the shadow Leader of the House in—although, she has not made a specific request for funding for her position.
	Finally, we heard from the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I would like to thank him for the key role he has played on the Administration Committee. He, like a number of Members, stressed his hope that the new Commission will improve communications and coherence. That is one of the key messages that have come out of the debate.
	This has been a short debate, which demonstrates that the modest provisions in the Bill have support from across the House. I will therefore detain the House no further and hope that the Bill can now made rapid progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

House of Commons Commission Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Members of the Commission etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dai Havard: With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule stand part.

Tom Brake: Clause 1 deals with changes to the membership of the Commission. It amends the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which established the Commission and defined its membership. The amendments set out in clause 1 extend the membership from the current six Members of Parliament to 11 members in total.
	Under subsections (2) and (3), the new Commission will consist of seven parliamentary members, two external members and two official members. Subsection (4) provides that the external members, like other members, will be appointed by resolution of the House and that those members cannot come from Parliament itself—they must be genuinely external.
	New subsection (2C) specifies that the official members are the Clerk and the Director General of the House of Commons, when the latter is appointed. The new post of Director General is not otherwise defined in statute, so the Bill provides, in new subsection (2C)(b), for the Commission to appoint an alternative official if the post is vacant or ceases to exist. That allows the Commission the freedom to change the name of that senior post at a future point without recourse to legislative change.
	Subsection (5) provides a definition for members of staff of the House of Lords. There is no need to provide an equivalent definition for Commons staff because the term “staff in the House Departments” is already used in the 1978 Act.
	Finally, subsection (6) gives effect to the schedule, which makes further provision about the membership and procedures of the Commission, which we will debate later. The clause and the accompanying schedule implement the legislative recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee regarding the membership of the Commission.

Thomas Docherty: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I will be extremely brief. We welcome this clause, which is a logical extension. I see no need to continue this debate any longer than necessary.

Tom Brake: Hear, hear to that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Functions of the Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tom Brake: Clause 2 amends section 2 of the 1978 Act. It extends the role of the Commission to include the setting of strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments. That function is added to the Commission’s current statutory responsibilities for staff appointments, numbers, pay and pensions. This amendment to the 1978 Act implements in full a recommendation from the House of Commons Governance Committee and makes explicit in statute a role that the Commission otherwise fulfils by default. The precise way in which the Commission carries out that function is not prescribed in the Bill, in order to allow the Commission flexibility to decide the most appropriate way to discharge its responsibilities.

Thomas Docherty: Again, I will be as brief as possible. As I said on Second Reading—all that time ago—I am frankly astonished that we have gone 30-odd years without having a Commission set out that one of its core functions is from time to time to set out strategic priorities. I think that is a very obvious point that should be addressed. When external members and selected and the parliamentary parties choose their representatives, I hope that the parliamentary parties and the Commission will bear in mind the qualities that are needed. The Commission’s job is not to micro-manage the House service; it is to set strategic priorities. That is therefore a key requirement in external member appointments and the choice of members to serve for the parliamentary parties.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Commencement, extent and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tom Brake: Clause 3 sets out the commencement procedures for the Bill. These are designed to ensure that the reformed Commission can be established as quickly as possible. This is achieved through bringing the new Commission into being when the last of the parliamentary members has been appointed, but allowing for the appointments process for other members of the Commission to continue prior to this date.
	For the benefit of the House, I will quickly set out the detail of how these commencement provisions will operate, as I am conscious that they are not straightforward. From the day that this Bill is passed, it will be possible to appoint the new members of the Commission. This will ensure that the process for appointing the parliamentary and external members of the Commission can start as soon as possible and that the new Director General and the Clerk can join the Commission at an early stage. These appointments, and the Commission’s new function
	of setting strategic priorities and objectives for services provided by the House departments, will take effect on the day after the last of the parliamentary members has been appointed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Question put, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
	Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	Third Reading

William Hague: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This has throughout been a matter for the House. The role of the Government has been to facilitate and support the House in reaching a decision and in making these changes. The House has demonstrated its support for the recommendations of the Governance Committee implemented by this Bill. The Bill is one strand—an important strand—of the package of measures that is currently being taken forward by the Commission and the House. I am sure that this package overall will help to bring the governance arrangements of the House up to date and deliver improvements for Members, staff and the public.
	Once again, I thank everyone who has contributed to this work and strongly support it as Leader of the House. I commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.

Thomas Docherty: Again, I will be brief. I join the Leader of the House in thanking not just the Governance Committee and its staff but all the House service,
	including the secretary of the Commission, Mr Twigger, who is also the Clerk of the Finance and Services Committee, and Helen Wood, the Clerk of the Administration Committee, for all their work in taking this forward.
	I am slightly disappointed by the Leader of the House. Those of us who have been watching the documentary series about the House of Commons will recall him saying that he once had a 24-hour speech prepared. Given the quickness with which we have moved through this, perhaps he could have been tempted to give us an excerpt from that speech. I think we still have four and half hours left if he wants to fill up the time.

William Hague: I have to say that while watching those programmes we have seen aspects of the hon. Gentleman himself that many of us never wish to see again. There are many things set out in them that are not to be brought on to the Floor of the House today.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful for that very helpful intervention.
	As regards making good progress, it is absolutely crucial that the Finance and Services Committee and the Administration Committee move very quickly after the general election to fill the two posts on the Commission. I hope that the Committee of Selection will therefore make one of its early priorities finding time to establish at least initial versions of the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee so that we can fulfil this process.
	This has been a good and very consensual debate. We wish the Bill all the best in the other place.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Sittings in Westminster Hall

Charles Walker: I beg to move,
	That–
	(1) this House approves the following recommendations of the Procedure Committee in its First Report of Session 2014-15, Business in Westminster Hall (HC 236), and Fifth Report, Business in Westminster Hall: Government response and revised Standing Order No.10 (HC 1035):
	(a) that the final debate on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in Westminster Hall be extended from half an hour to an hour (First Report, paragraphs 5 to 11);
	(b) that debate in Westminster Hall take place on ‘general debate’ motions (“That this House has considered [a specified matter]”), rather than motions for the adjournment of the sitting, provided that such motions are expressed in neutral terms (First Report, paragraphs 17 to 22 and 26, and Fifth Report, paragraph 6);
	(c) that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be given overall responsibility for the business at all sittings in Westminster Hall, subject to the ability of the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee to nominate subjects for debate on Thursday afternoons (First Report, paragraphs 27 to 29);
	(d) that the Chair in Westminster Hall should have the power to order a disorderly Member to withdraw from the sitting, and that if a disorderly Member refuses to withdraw when ordered by the Chair, the Chair should have the power to suspend the sitting and to report the conduct of the Member to the House (First Report, paragraphs 30 and 31); and
	(e) that the provision of the existing Standing Order No. 10 enabling the House to appoint not more than four members of the Panel of Chairs to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker be repealed (First Report, paragraph 34); and
	(2) with effect from the start of the next Parliament, Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) accordingly be repealed and replaced with the following revised standing order:
	“Sittings in Westminster Hall
	(1) On days on which the House sits there shall also be a sitting in Westminster Hall–
	(a) on Mondays beginning at 4.30pm and continuing for up to three hours, if the Backbench Business Committee has reported its determination that a sitting in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition or e-petitions should take place on that day;
	(b) on Tuesdays and Wednesdays beginning at 9.30am, which shall be suspended from 11.30am till 2.30pm and may then continue for up to a further three hours; and
	(c) on Thursdays beginning at 1.30pm and continuing for up to three hours.
	(2) The exceptions are as follows.
	(a) That there will be no sittings in Westminster Hall until the House has concluded its debate on the Queen's Speech at the commencement of each Session.
	(b) That if the sitting occurs on a Tuesday or Wednesday which is the first day on which the House sits immediately following a periodic adjournment of the House of more than two days, the sitting shall be between 9.30am and 2.30pm.
	(3) When a sitting (including the time when a sitting is due to commence or resume), or any part of a sitting, in Westminster Hall coincides with a sitting of the House, the Chair shall suspend the sitting to allow Members to participate in any division called in the House or a committee of the whole House, and the time taken for any such suspensions shall be added to the duration of the sitting in Westminster Hall specified in paragraph (1) of this order and to any time specified by the Chairman of Ways and Means under paragraph (6) of this order.
	(4) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.
	(5) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.
	(6) The business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint, and may include oral questions. The Chairman of Ways and Means may specify the finishing time of any business taken at a sitting in Westminster Hall; and the motion under consideration shall lapse at that time if not previously disposed of.
	(7) Notwithstanding paragraph (6), the business taken at any Thursday sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee shall determine; and so far as possible the time available at such sittings during a Session shall be divided as nearly as practical equally between those committees, subject to the agreement of the Chairs of those committees.
	(8) If a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question on it shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.
	(9) If any business other than a motion for adjournment or a motion to which Standing Order No. 24B (Amendments to motions to consider specified matters) applies is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceedings, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Chair shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (8) above relating thereto shall be discharged.
	(10) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman may take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and any member of the Panel of Chairs may also take the chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall when so requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
	(11) If any Member persistently defies the authority of the Chair at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the Chair of that sitting may order the Member to withdraw from that sitting; and if the Member does not do so, the Chair may suspend the sitting and report the conduct of the Member to the House.
	(12) Any resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be a resolution of the House.
	(13) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Chair as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Chair shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.
	(14) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Chair shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been started but not disposed of shall lapse.
	(15) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41(Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c., to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.”
	Sittings in Westminster Hall have become an established feature of House of Commons life. However, the Committee felt that there was room to make some small improvements to the second Chamber, which has remained largely unchanged since it came into use in November 1999. Although not welcoming all our proposals, the Government have supported many of the Committee’s recommendations in its report of 10 September 2014. I shall focus on those in this brief speech.
	First, we recommend the introduction of two one-hour debating slots to take place at the end of Tuesday and Wednesday sittings. These hour-long debates will replace the half-hour debates at the ends of those two days and extend the sitting in Westminster Hall by half an hour. It is hoped that the hour-long debates will provide some additional flexibility for Members. This change, if approved by the House, will allow more colleagues to intervene or take part in a debate and provide the opportunity for the Opposition Front Bencher to make a short contribution. I stress that the emphasis really is on “short”—just a few brief observations. Additional tidying-up measures will see the Backbench Business Committee assume responsibility for allocating one 90-minute debate per week in Westminster Hall. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this has been trialled over the past year and has proved to be a success, so we wish to make it a permanent part of the House’s procedures.
	We recommend that overall responsibility for the business of all sittings in Westminster Hall should be given to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Such a move would provide a single point of authority for all sittings and remove uncertainty about the oversight of Thursday sittings. The appointment of business for each day will continue to reflect the requirements set out in Standing Orders, protecting the nomination of debates by the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. An advantage of transferring responsibility for Thursdays to the Chairman of Ways and Means is that on the rare occasions that neither the Backbench Business Committee nor the Liaison Committee have nominated a subject for debate, the Chairman could nominate a replacement subject.
	The Committee recommends that those chairing Westminster Hall debates should have the power to order, as opposed to ask, a disorderly Member to leave the second Chamber. If the Member does not comply with that request, the Chair has the power to suspend the sitting and report the conduct of the Member to the House. Let me be clear: the purpose of giving the Chair such a power of last resort would be to make it more likely that it need never be used.
	Finally, in a continued drive to make the procedures of the House more relevant and accessible to the public and its Members, we recommend that debates taken in Westminster Hall be termed “general debates” as opposed to “Adjournment debates”. The title of such debates must remain genuinely neutral and free from argument or implied opinion.
	I hope that the recommendations that I have briefly outlined will find favour with the House.

Thomas Docherty: I will follow the example set by the Chair of the Procedure Committee by being equally brief. We welcome the fact that the Government have found time to debate not just this but two other reports. We are disappointed, however, that time has not been found to debate the report on private Members’ Bills. I hope the Minister will tell us when we will debate the report, which suggests sensible, modernising steps that were agreed unanimously by the Committee, which also entered into a negotiation on them with the Government over an extended period.
	I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, of which I am also a member. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the recommendation to switch Monday and Thursday sittings. I have always found the Leader of the House to be incredibly humorous, none more so than when he told the Committee that the Government were keen to preserve Thursday as a full day of business. Having attended many Thursday sittings, I am not sure that they are a fair reflection of all the business timetabled and I still believe it would be more helpful to colleagues for important Select Committee debates to take place on Monday afternoons and for e-petitions to be discussed on Thursdays.
	In the spirit of going forward, however, we welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the other changes, particularly the useful innovation of one-hour debates. My recollection is that the proposal was for Opposition Front-Bench contributions to be very brief, but our position is that such debates would operate in the same way as a one-and-a-half-hour debate. Oppositions tend to have substantive policy—we certainly do—and it would be unfair to try to cram that into a few brief remarks.
	I thank the Chair of the Committee for the way in which he set out the report and the Government for finding the time for the debate. I hope the motion can be agreed without dissent.

Tom Brake: I support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), relating to business in Westminster Hall.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving his OBE at the Palace today, and I am grateful to him for returning to the Chamber. I know he has been keen for the House to consider and decide on the outstanding work of his Committee before Dissolution. I am pleased that we have been able to facilitate that this afternoon.
	We will consider three of the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee today, but there is further House business to attend to, including reports by the Procedure and the Standards and Privileges Committees, the Standing Order changes necessary to bring into effect the recommendations of the House of Commons Governance Committee report, and the House of Commons Commission Bill that we have just considered. I expect there to be further opportunities for the House to consider those issues before 30 March, and it is the Government’s intention to provide time for those outstanding reports—including the report on private Members’ Bills—that have been agreed, so that those issues on which there is a wide consensus can be resolved before the end of the Parliament. I stress the importance of there being a wide consensus.

Thomas Docherty: I have listened carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s choice of words. It is our view, with the best will in the world, that a wide consensus is not the same as a Government veto. If the Government do not like a substantive part of the report on private Members’ Bills, they should say so publicly, which, ironically enough, is one of the things that the report
	seeks to get them to do in relation to private Members’ Bills. The Government simply not wanting to table a motion is not an excuse for not debating the issue in the House. The House is supreme and it should decide, not the Government.

Tom Brake: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He has now made two forceful bids for that report to be debated. It is worth underlining, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be as aware as anyone of the range of views on the issue of private Members’ Bills and how the process could be improved, ameliorated or changed.

Charles Walker: Given that we have strained the area of private Members’ Bills, I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know this is slightly naughty. The Government’s opposition to so much of that report seems implacable, so it is probably best that it is not debated in this Session, unless that opposition relents.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification and apparent counter-bid to block any proposal to debate that particular report.
	I would now like to move on to the motion and thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he set it out. The motion is the result of the Procedure Committee’s “Business in Westminster Hall” report, published in October 2014, and the follow-up report, which included the Government response and a revised Standing Order No. 10, published in January.
	I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee for the comprehensive way in which he set out the implications for the House of agreeing the motion. I am also grateful for the work of the Committee and pleased that the report recognises that the Government accepted the majority of the recommendations in the original report.
	The changes that will be introduced if the House approves the motion represent a sensible package of evolutionary changes to the work conducted in the second Chamber. Westminster Hall has proved itself as a valued resource since its introduction in 1999. Indeed, I can confirm that I used to make extensive use of Westminster Hall, usually for debates on the future of my local hospital, St Helier, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and I continue to campaign to this day, although that is not the purpose of this debate. The changes will, I hope, add further to the status of Westminster Hall. We have already seen some of the changes during this Parliament. For example, the use of additional time on Mondays for the consideration of e-petitions by the Backbench Business Committee is testament to the sort of valuable work that is conducted in Westminster Hall.
	The Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the provision of one-hour debates on Tuesdays and Wednesdays—by extending sittings for half an hour—will provide useful additional flexibility and is a welcome recognition of anecdotal evidence that many Members who wish to raise issues feel constrained by the limits of a 30-minute debate, but would not necessarily wish to apply for a 90-minute debate. That change will be welcomed by Members, without placing additional onerous requirements on Ministers and Opposition spokespeople. The arrangements set out in chapter 2 of the Committee’s original report, to provide an opportunity for Opposition
	spokespeople to participate in such debates, are sensible, although my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will have heard a request from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for clarification on the precise role that Opposition spokespeople will play. I and others would certainly appreciate clarity from the Procedure Committee on whether the proposal is optional or the Member who has initiated the debate will have to request it.
	Similarly, the changes that mean that debates in Westminster Hall will be considered on neutral general motions, not Adjournment motions, is entirely sensible. Clearly, there are people among the wider public who understand what an Adjournment motion is, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of members of the public, and perhaps Members of Parliament, would be more comfortable with “general motions” as a clear description of what is being debated.

Charles Walker: On speeches by Opposition Front Benchers, the report says that
	“so long as they are brief we recommend that Opposition spokespeople be able to participate in hour-long debates in Westminster Hall. We trust that Chairs in Westminster Hall, backed by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Panel of Chairs, will offer robust guidance to Opposition spokespeople on the appropriate length of their speeches.”
	It is not the Committee’s intention that Opposition spokespeople get the same amount of time as a Minister.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, although it still leaves slightly open the question of whether it is optional. The Chair could choose not to allow the Opposition spokesman or woman to speak. I am sure that can be clarified in the future.
	Many in the House are keen that our work is as open and transparent to members of the public as possible, and this is a small step in the direction of giving the House’s procedures greater clarity and consistency.
	The Government did not agree with three issues in the original report. Those issues are set out in the Government response and the subsequent report containing the revised recommendations. I am grateful to the Committee for being willing to accept the Government’s view on those issues, and for bringing before the House a set of proposals that should have widespread support from across the House.
	With regard to the use of substantive motions in Westminster Hall, the Government agree that the main Chamber is the proper place for debates on amendable business, not least in view of the practical difficulties surrounding voting in Westminster Hall. The Government do not wish to rule out the possibility of taking some substantive business in Westminster Hall at some point—for example, to remove pressure on the Chamber—but much more work would need to be undertaken on the practical and procedural implications. For that reason, the Government did not support the recommendations of the Committee for the repeal of paragraphs (9) and (12) of Standing Order No. 10, although we accept that those provisions have not been used.
	The Committee recommended that the current sittings on Mondays and Thursdays be swapped so that Select Committee debates chosen by the Liaison Committee and Back-Bench debates would be taken on a Monday, and any debates on e-petitions would be scheduled on a
	Thursday. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said, the Government are committed to maintaining the integrity of Thursday as a full parliamentary day, which I hope all Members of the House will respect. The Committee’s proposals, which the Government could not support, would send a contrary signal, particularly given that there would be no business in Westminster Hall on many Thursdays.
	The Committee proposed an earlier start and finish time in Westminster Hall on Thursdays. Without evidence of widespread support for this measure, the Government opposed it. I am grateful to the Committee for deciding not to press that proposal.
	I again thank the Committee for its work. I ask the House to support the motion. If approved, the new Standing Order would be introduced at the start of the next Parliament.

Charles Walker: I just want to say that I am satisfied.
	Question put and agreed to.

Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s Consent

[Relevant documents: Eleventh Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2013-14, on Theimpact of Queen’s and Prince’s Consent on the legislative process, HC 784, and the Governmentresponse, HC 224.]

Charles Walker: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in its Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, on Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent (HC 871), and accordingly:
	(a) endorses the practice of not requiring consent to be re-signified when a bill has been carried over from one session to the next;
	(b) orders that, where it is required, Queen’s and/or Prince of Wales’s consent be signified at third reading, whatever the nature and extent of the prerogatives or interests engaged; and
	(c) endorses the practice of noting the need for consent in relation to a particular bill by including a note on the Future Business section of the order paper that consent is to be signified on third reading as soon as this requirement is known.
	In its report on “The impact of Queen’s and Prince’s Consent on the legislative process”, published in March 2014, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made several proposals to change the process for obtaining and signifying consent to Bills before Parliament. The Procedure Committee agrees that consent should not be re-signified when a Bill has been carried over from one Session to the next, and we recommend that the House should formally endorse that practice.
	In a departure from the recommendations made by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Procedure Committee suggests that consent should continue to be given by a Privy Counsellor, as we have seen no evidence that any Bill has been delayed by the fact that a Privy Counsellor was not present. The Committee’s view is that continuing the current signification process is more open and transparent.
	Currently, consent can be signified either on Second Reading or on Third Reading, depending on the extent or nature of the way in which the prerogatives or interests of the Queen or Prince of Wales are affected. However, even when consent has been signified on Second Reading, amendments at subsequent stages can require consent to be re-sought and re-signified on Third Reading. We therefore share the concerns of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the signifying of consent at different legislative stages can add confusion to the legislative process.
	On 30 October, the other place agreed that, where necessary, whatever the nature or extent of the interests or prerogatives engaged, consent by the Queen or Prince of Wales should be signified in that House on Third Reading. Following the decision of the other place and the recommendations of our colleagues on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, we recommend that, where it is required, consent should be signified on Third Reading, whatever the nature and extent of the prerogatives or interests engaged.
	We recommend that the House should formally endorse the practice of noting the need for consent in relation to a Bill by including a note in the future business section of the Order Paper that consent is to be signified on Third Reading, as soon as this requirement is known.

Thomas Docherty: I will be even briefer than I have been by my standard today; we have important business to discuss.
	I thank the Procedure Committee for its work. It is right that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee offered no substantive evidence requiring signification by a Privy Counsellor in person had delayed Bills—Governments have found enough ways to hold up Bills that they do not particularly like—and we therefore think this is a sensible way forward.

Tom Brake: I rise to speak in support of the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). The proposals arise from the report of the Procedure Committee published in December 2014, which was itself the result of earlier work by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I am grateful to both Committees for their work. As was stated in response to the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in June 2014, Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent is a long-standing parliamentary requirement for certain Bills, so it is for Parliament to decide on these matters.
	The Procedure Committee’s proposed changes are entirely sensible. They will increase transparency by noting under future business when a Bill requires consent, simplify the procedures by endorsing the practice of not requiring consent to be re-signified when a Bill is carried over between Sessions and increase consistency between Bills by ensuring that consent, when required, is always signified on Third Reading. The Government are happy to support these small and sensible tidying-up reforms. We will continue actively to co-operate with Parliament on its requirements in relation to the legislative process. I hope that the House will support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

Petitions and e-petitions

Charles Walker: I beg to move,
	That–
	(1) this House approves the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, E-petitions: a collaborative system (HC 235), concerning the establishment of an e-petition system jointly owned by the House and the Government, and of a Petitions Committee with responsibility for overseeing both the e-petition and the existing paper petitioning system;
	(2) the following new standing order accordingly be made, with effect from the start of the next Parliament—
	“Petitions Committee
	(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Petitions Committee, to consider public petitions presented to the House and e-petitions submitted through the House of Commons and Government e-petitions site.
	(2) The committee shall consist of not more than eleven members.
	(3) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.
	(4) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.
	(5) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before the sub-committee.
	(6) The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.
	(7) The committee shall be responsible for determining whether a sitting should take place in Westminster Hall under paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) to consider one or more petitions or e-petitions, and shall report any such determination to the House.”; and
	(3) the following amendments to standing orders be made, with effect from the start of the next Parliament—
	Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall)
	In paragraph (1)(a), leave out “Backbench Business Committee” and insert “Petitions Committee”.
	In paragraph (1)(a), leave out “e-petition or e-petitions” and insert “one or more petitions or e-petitions”.
	Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business)
	Leave out paragraph (5).
	Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs)
	Add the following new sub-paragraph to paragraph (1):
	“() the Petitions Committee.”
	Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee)
	In paragraph (8)(b), leave out “paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 10” and insert “paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10”.
	Of the Procedure Committee’s three debates this afternoon, this is the big enchilada: the one that the House—or at least those in the Chamber—has been waiting for with bated breath.
	On 8 May, the House agreed to establish a collaborative e-petitions system. In the intervening time, the Procedure Committee has worked hard to come up with a workable and robust set of proposals. In brief, we are proposing the following system. A petition will need to attract the support of six people before going live, and it will remain live for six months. Oversight of the joint e-petition
	system will be undertaken by a House of Commons Petitions Committee, which will have an elected Chair and elected Members. The Committee will be able to correspond with petitioners on their petition, and to call them for oral evidence. It will be able to refer a petition to the relevant Select Committee, and to seek further information, either written or oral, from the Government. May I say that oral evidence will be requested only in exceptional circumstances? The Committee will obviously be allowed to put forward petitions for debate. It will be supported by excellent House of Commons staff.
	May I remind hon. Members, who may be drawing breath at the thought of the creation of another Committee, that the House had a Petitions Committee from the early 19th century up until 1974? It is not the Procedure Committee’s intention to create an additional Committee, but for the new Petitions Committee to replace an existing Committee. However, that is for the business managers to decide.
	In his evidence to us, the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), said:
	“I think it is important to have a committee in some form to highlight to the public that Parliament treats this seriously, to make sure that Government departments respond properly and fully, and to be able to recommend debates where necessary.”
	The Petitions Committee will decide which petitions merit further action. It will take the existing threshold of 100,000 signatures as the established starting point for considering whether there should be a debate in the House. However—this “however” is very important—in this age of mass campaigning, the Committee will also be mindful of smaller petitions that although not benefiting from the support of well-funded and organised pressure groups are nevertheless deemed to be of great importance to a community and it will perhaps be mindful, in extreme cases, even of a petition from an individual.
	The Petitions Committee will seek to improve engagement with petitioners. Often, those submitting and supporting a petition will not get the exact outcome they want, but they will hopefully feel that their concerns have been appreciated and heard through constructive engagement with the Committee, and through receiving responses from the Government and—on occasion—the relevant Select Committee. Moderation of the site will be carried out by e-petition staff.
	It is also our intention for the e-petition system to contain a facility that allows our constituents to alert us when they have signed a petition—after all, we all greatly enjoy and love hearing from our constituents. That facility would be provided through the provision of an e-mail address, and a strong suggestion that when our constituents provide us with an e-mail address they also provide us with their home address so that we can verify that they are our constituents.
	The threshold of six signatures has been identified because it requires the lead petitioner to seek support for his or her position, but ensures that in seeking that support the demands on the individual are not too onerous. Within the current system, around one in five e-petitions that have been submitted have attracted fewer than three signatures, and 42% have attracted fewer than six. This is a petition system; it should not be
	for individual representations as those are best made to the relevant Member of Parliament. To emphasise the parliamentary oversight of the system, and in line with the House’s historic role as the principal recipient of public petitions, we have recommended that the site’s URL be e-petitions.parliament.uk, with a clear link from the Parliament website to the e-petition site.
	On the important matter of privilege, a petition should not be privileged simply by virtue of having been approved by staff of the Petitions Committee. The House publishes much material on its website that is not a proceeding in Parliament and is therefore not privileged. The point at which an e-petition becomes a proceeding in Parliament will be when it is considered by the Petitions Committee. Only when the Committee has considered the petition and considered it fit for presentation to the House will it constitute a proceeding in Parliament. Notwithstanding the issue of privilege, it is possible that a petition published on an e-petition site, and endorsed and established by the House, could attract the more limited protection of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Therefore, the Petitions Committee staff drawn from the House will need to exercise their usual great care in the moderation of petitions, to ensure that no potentially actionable material is published in an e-petition without the explicit authority of the Petitions Committee.
	A petition will be open for signature for six months. After that, the title of each e-petition will be recorded in a list in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, together with the number of signatures it has attracted. Should a Member wish to pursue it, the paper petition system will enable the formal presentation of the subject of an e-petition on the Floor of the House.
	In bringing forward debates we recommend that the Petitions Committee assume responsibility from the Backbench Business Committee for determining debates on e-petitions in Westminster Hall. Importantly, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is supportive of that change. If the Petitions Committee decided that a petition warranted debate in the main Chamber, it could approach the Backbench Business Committee and ask for that time to be provided. However, the Backbench Business Committee is under no obligation to grant that time—there will be no land grab.
	For paper petitions, we have concluded that the rules and procedures should remain as they are, with one exception, which is to provide the Petitions Committee with the power to consider paper petitions and take appropriate action, alongside petitions coming through the electronic system. I believe that change will strengthen the paper petition process.
	Let me return to the vexed issue of cost. The cost of the new system we are proposing is set out at the back of our report, but we estimate the one-off start-up cost at £188,000, with an annual running cost of around £115,000. Those costs will be shared between the House and the Government. There could also be an additional cost of £39,000 to enable data from the site to be made available through data.parliament.uk. That cost will be borne by the House, if approved by the Finance and Services Committee.
	In addition to the cost of setting up and maintaining an electronic petition system, we estimate that the staffing cost will be about £200,000 per year, equating to a team of four full-time equivalent people—Officers of the
	House. The cost of those House staff will be borne entirely by the House. Finally, the running cost of the Petitions Committee, depending on its practices, is expected to be around £50,000 per annum. If anybody is doing a running total, I believe that those numbers add up to about £395,000—if they do not, any hon. Lady or Gentleman who discovers that my maths is wrong can approach me later. For further details of costs, I refer colleagues to the recently published memorandum from the accounting officer that is available in the Vote Office.
	To conclude my rather lengthy remarks, I thank my excellent Committee Clerks. They are heroic in every way—patient, intelligent, insightful and rather brilliant, and I thank them for the huge amount of effort that they have put into this report. I also thank the Government digital service and the former Leader of the House, who is sitting next to me, for his efforts in bringing this Committee to life. A joint Petitions Committee overseen by a Committee of the House is one of the most amazing things that has happened in this place for some time, and he is to be congratulated on his foresight in allowing it to become possible. I also thank the current Leader of the House for the support he has given our Committee in bringing forward these proposals.

Nicholas Dakin: I rise briefly to commend the comments of the Chair of the Procedure Committee—while he is thanking everybody else perhaps we might thank him for his stewardship of that Committee. I also apologise for joining the debate slightly late as I was in a Statutory Instrument Committee.
	In this work the modern world intercepts with our traditions, and the Chair of the Procedure Committee has spelt out clearly why the proposals in the report are the right way to take the issue forward in a way that recognises public interest. There has been a lot of public enthusiasm for e-petitions, as I saw during my involvement with a petition that was created by a constituent and aimed to push the issue of pancreatic cancer up the agenda. E-petitions are a good tool for interacting with the public in an engaging way, but they must be managed properly in how they intercept with this place. The Chair of the Procedure Committee is to be congratulated on setting out a sensible way forward that I hope the House will take advantage of.

Andrew Lansley: I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for missing the start of his remarks. You have been so admirably brisk this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was caught elsewhere in the Palace when the debate began—[Interruption.] It did not happen like that in my day, but the present Leader of the House is so efficient.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. Some time ago when I was Leader of the House, the House resolved to ask the Procedure Committee to consider this matter. I take no issue with the way it has been brought forward as there has been an excellent examination of it. The Committee has made very good recommendations that will enable us to do something for the next Parliament and beyond that will be regarded
	as important: enable people to interact directly and collectively with their Parliament on issues that matter to them. There is a very rich history of petitioning Parliament. If the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) were here, he would be able to explain it to us in great detail. Petitioning is at the heart of Parliament, along with voting Supply. It is one of the central missions of a Parliament and in recent years it has fallen into disuse.
	I give credit to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). At the start of this Parliament, the e-petition system was developed so that people had a mechanism to petition what they thought of as their Parliament. In reality, they were petitioning the Government. It was only by virtue of the Government’s reference on to the Backbench Business Committee that there was an expectation—no more than that; nothing was written formally into Standing Orders—that petitions that attracted substantial support would get formal responses from Government, which is something I introduced or, that those with more than 100,000 signatures, would be eligible for debate in this House. The way in which the Backbench Business Committee has consistently and positively responded to that has enabled people to believe that they were petitioning their Parliament, but they were not. We have debated before in this Chamber the distinctions between Government and Parliament. Those distinctions are important. It was clearly the public’s belief that they were petitioning both Government and Parliament. They were not really distinguishing between the two. They wanted the people who had Executive power to listen to them and respond. They wanted their representatives to take their issue and to hold the Government to account, or to have the opportunity to express their view. The proposals will enable that to happen in the next Parliament. I think it will rapidly become a very meaningful part of our new reformed relationship between the public and Parliament.
	The Deputy Leader of the House and I visited the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We saw, in the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in particular, a lot of good practice, which we were very keen to bring back here. I know that the Procedure Committee has looked at that experience too. Of course, the scale is immensely different. In the order of magnitude, there is a greater scale of petitioning to this Parliament than to the Scottish Parliament.
	In truth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made clear, very large numbers of petitions do not attract substantial support and do not raise broader issues of public policy or accountability. It will be for a Petitions Committee to examine the flow of petitions and isolate those that are important enough to be debated. What I think will become a significant part of our practice here will be the opportunity to bring petitioners before the Select Committee on Petitions to present their case. People will literally have their day in the court of Parliament. They will be able not just to present but explain their petition. As my hon. Friend made clear, through the mechanism of enabling them to tell their Member of Parliament that they have signed a petition, they will be able to update their MP on the progress of that petition. There will an opportunity for MPs, if they wish, to join in that process of examining
	the merits of a petition and examining how Parliament and Government are responding. I think that that will be a dramatic improvement in accountability.
	We have seen during this Parliament some positive indications that the public believe that this Parliament, in the past four-and-a-half years, is more likely to debate issues of relevance. Other measures have contributed—the use of urgent questions and so on—but the petition system has been a part of that. We are seen here to be responding on issues of importance and relevance in a timely way for members of the public. This will add to that. I think the public will recognise that and use it—whether they use it will be the deciding factor.
	I pay tribute to the Government Digital Service and to my former colleagues in the Leader’s Office, who have managed this system. They have demonstrated how this can be done effectively, efficiently and economically. The new system will, to a large extent, rest on that and we should certainly give them credit for that. The Government and Parliament working together is a powerful illustration of how we can bring our activities together to benefit the public.
	On cost, one of the recommendations of the Wright Committee, as yet unrealised, is a critical examination of the number of Select Committees. We are resolving here to have one more Select Committee. I make no bones about that: I think it is the right thing. However, Members in the next Parliament should be prepared to examine critically—it will not be me—the structure of Select Committees and whether there are more than we need to do the job they are required to do effectively. There should be no part of Government activity that is without a Select Committee scrutinising and holding them to account. To some extent, however, we have some overlap. It will be important for the House to take an active decision at the start of the next Parliament on how many Select Committees there should be and on their future structure.
	Having made that more contentious point, I would like to return to the consensus and say a final thank you to the Procedure Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for the efficient and effective way in which they have taken the request from this Chamber and turned into it a practical way forward for the next Parliament.

Thomas Docherty: I am conscious that we have an important debate on mental health to follow, so I do not seek to delay the House unduly.
	I begin by praising the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). I think it was the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) who suggested to him that if we, as Parliament, got this right, it would be the most significant reform since the setting up of Select Committees in 1979 and that he would have left his mark in a positive way at the end of this Parliament. The Committee’s report will set us on that right track.
	If I may pick up on the final point made by the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I do not think it is contentious to highlight the issue of cost. That is
	something we have talked about already this afternoon. The Opposition are clear that this is not an additional Select Committee, as the Chairman himself stated. It has to be a replacement for one of the Select Committees. It is clearly not for us today to determine what the next Parliament does, but there are one or two Select Committees that are not Government scrutiny committees which could be looked at. On cost, which the Chairman highlighted so boldly, it is worth pointing out that a lot of those costs are already being met by the Government. The taxpayer pays for both and this would move the costs from the Cabinet Office to Parliament. When the Leader of the House responds, I hope he will confirm that the Government will seek to assist in mitigating those costs to Parliament as the new system is implemented.
	The Procedure Committee rightly raised concerns about the misuse of e-petitions by campaigning organisations. We are absolutely clear, as has already been said, that genuine petitioning of Parliament is a constitutional right that goes back to the 17th century. This is not designed to be a mechanism to allow well-funded vested interest groups to seek to engineer debates. That is why it is absolutely appropriate that when an e-petition reaches the 100,000 threshold it still has to be considered by a Select Committee before it is granted time. We also think that the proposals for granting privilege are sensible. This is not, and should not be, a back-door mechanism for ingenious Members to try to attach privilege, having failed with other mechanisms to circumvent the courts.
	I wish to make a few critiques of the current system, many of which, to be fair, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has already highlighted. A couple of Sessions ago, the Procedure Committee published a report stating that the greatest challenge facing the electorate was the confusing nature of the e-petitions system. When the e-petitions website was established in 2010, it gave the erroneous impression that members of the public were influencing Parliament, but as he acknowledged, they were not; the e-petitions were influencing Government to ask Parliament to do something. It is absolutely right, therefore, that this be a joint system. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, has a different perspective—he would prefer separate systems—but we are clear that there should be a single system, not just for cost reasons but in order to provide members of the public with the opportunity to have greater influence over our democratic process. Such a system should make it clearer who is being petitioned—that, as the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, it is Parliament that is being petitioned, not the Executive branch.
	I wish now to be positive about the success of the past four or five years. In that time, we have had some fantastic debates. One of the best was the Hillsborough debate one Monday afternoon, during which we heard powerful speeches from both sides of the House. That began with an e-petition—one of the earliest e-petitions. For that reason, and provided we enter into this in the correct spirit, I would like to see more of these powerful, public-led debates influencing our democracy. As my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has said several times, we are clear that Parliament must do more to reconnect with our constituents, who ultimately are our bosses, and e-petitions are a useful tool for doing that.
	There has been talk about the system in the Scottish Parliament, which, like the Government, the Procedure Committee visited. However, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to caution against taking a straight read across, given the scale of the system there. Members of Parliament must remain constituents’ key advocates—the e-petitions system should not replace that; it would not be possible to replicate the system in Scotland with 10 times the number of constituencies. Furthermore, the Scottish Parliament does not have the full range of issues to cover that the Westminster Parliament does, and therefore it is right that the Clerks service is there to support it.
	We fully support the proposals—they are an excellent way forward—and we hope that they will be implemented to great acclaim in the next Parliament.

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the Leader of the House, I should tell the House that I am aware that there is a problem with the annunciators. It can be confusing for Members if the information upon which we rely is wrong, and it has been consistently wrong, one way or another, all afternoon. Those who put these things right know about it, and work is being undertaken and it should be better soon.

William Hague: Indeed, the annunciator froze altogether during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill earlier, which I hope was not a comment on the complexity of the discussion.
	I rise to support the motion in my name and that of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I join in the congratulations to him on his OBE today. I also join in the warm welcome, from all around the House, for the report and the changes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), my predecessor, said, the right to petition Parliament is an historic right. There was a time in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when the Table of the House groaned beneath the weight of the hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions against the slave trade and slavery and so on, which were part of changing the political culture and the sense of what was politically possible. Given, therefore, that new technology enables millions of people to get in touch with us directly on a wide range of issues, it is right that we make these arrangements.
	I also join in paying tribute not only to the Procedure Committee, which has done outstanding work on this subject, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for strongly supporting this system when he was Leader of the House and for making it simple and straightforward for me to continue with that support. The system that has been running in this Parliament, which the Government established after 2010, can be considered very successful. I think that more than 10 million individuals have signed one or more of 32,000 e-petitions, more than 150 of which have reached 10,000 signatures and received a formal response from the Government. To date, 37 e-petitions have reached 100,000 signatures, making them eligible to be considered for debate, and 31 of those have so far been debated, either in the Chamber or Westminster Hall, with one more planned for debate next month. It is a straightforward means by which people can submit
	a petition, raise an issue and press for action. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just said, we have seen important debates as a result—Hillsborough is a good example, but also on the badger cull, Sophie’s choice, female genital mutilation and so on. These were important debates in which there was no shortage of Members wishing to take part and which provided among the most constructive and memorable debates this Parliament.
	Last May, the House agreed unanimously to a motion supporting the establishment of a collaborative e-petitions system, and since that debate, the Procedure Committee has been working hard to bring to the House proposals for such a system. The motion is the result of that work, and I am grateful for how the Committee has engaged with officials in my office and from the Government Digital Service in reaching its conclusions. The fact that the current Government system has worked so well is reflected in the Committee’s recommendation that the joint system be based on the existing Government e-petition site, redesigned and rebranded to show that it is jointly owned by the House and the Government. I support that approach. The use of a platform already developed will save time and minimise the costs of the new system.
	The Procedure Committee recommends some useful changes to the process of e-petitioning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out. I need not go through them in detail, but the changes requiring an additional five signatures to that of the creator of a petition before moderation and standardising the duration of petitions to six months are sensible changes. The most significant recommendation in this, the big enchilada, as he described it—not the words I was going to use to describe this important reform—is the creation of a Petitions Committee. It will be a major change and should be the catalyst for a fundamental change in the relationship between Parliament and the petitioner. The greater range of available outcomes and the use of House staff to moderate e-petitions should all improve the engagement of this House with petitioners. All those things will be a very important step forward.
	There will be a cost to the House in agreeing the motion—those costs were set out by my hon. Friend—but there is agreement, certainly among the Front Benches, that the establishment of a new Committee will require us to consider a corresponding reduction elsewhere. However, that will be a decision for the new Parliament, which is now not far away. In response to the question about the Government’s mitigating the costs, it has been agreed that we will share the costs. That will certainly mitigate the cost to the House, and my hon. Friend set out the precise numbers involved.
	If the House approves the motion, the necessary changes to Standing Orders will be implemented at the start of the next Parliament. The current Government e-petition site will close when Parliament is dissolved on 30 March. The aim will be to establish the new site as soon as possible after the election of the Chair and members of the new Petitions Committee at the start of the next Parliament, allowing time for the memorandum of understanding and terms and conditions for the site, as appended to the Procedure Committee report, to be agreed between the Petitions Committee, on behalf of the House, and the Government.
	I urge all Members to support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Mental Health and Unemployment

Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered mental health and unemployment.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to have the debate, and also to those who supported the application: the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—whom I, too, congratulate on receiving his OBE today—and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).
	Let me begin with a story that I think helps to illustrate what the debate is all about. It demonstrates powerfully not only that progress has been made, but that more progress is needed to ensure that we really tackle mental health issues in the workplace. This is the story of Anne-Marie, in her own words.
	“I was suffering in silence because managers and colleagues didn’t know what I was going through. At work they just didn’t have the knowledge to deal with a mental health illness. So I didn’t bring it up because I was afraid of being judged or being looked down on.
	If I had a broken leg, they could have physically seen it, and workplace adjustments would have been made. Every job by law has a first aider so if someone hurts or burns themselves or falls down the stairs, there is someone to assist them or professional help is available. But what happens when my mind goes into crisis? Where do I go in the workplace? I was taking my problems home and I was causing further damage to myself. But in the workplace where are there avenues for us to turn to or people to speak to?”
	Eventually, Anne-Marie was away from work because of her illness. It was some time before she left hospital and returned to work, and when she did, things did not go well. She says:
	““I remember returning to work and I felt so lost. I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to do and I didn’t really know where I was. I had a meeting about why I was off and how they could support me. I wasn’t in a place to tell them my needs or say ‘This is what I require’. So I just went back to work and was very unhappy, which led to me being off again.”
	There are thousands of Anne-Maries all over the country: thousands of people who are having experiences of that kind. With the right occupational support, however, people can be helped to remain in the workplace—reasonable adjustments can be made—and with the right back-to-work support, people can return to work and work can be good for them. I hope that the debate will convey that message.
	Anne-Marie’s story appears in an excellent report by the charity Mind called “We’ve got work to do”, and it makes the case—a compelling case, in my view—for changes in the operation of back-to-work support. For most people, work is a normal part of everyday life. An occupation and a sense of purpose can play a critical part in promoting recovery and social inclusion. Good work can be good for people’s health. I wanted to secure this debate in order to highlight the fact that more than a third of people with mild to moderate mental health problems, and nearly two thirds of people with severe mental health problems, are unemployed, although the vast majority desperately want to work.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am extremely interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and agree with all of it. In some cases, however, work itself can be the cause of mental health issues—for instance, when there is bullying or poor management. The work that we do in the Chamber makes us feel good about ourselves, and work can do that, but it can also be a cause of mental health problems.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I chose my words carefully. I said “Good work can be good for people’s health”, but, equally, bad work can be bad for people’s health. Poor employment practices and bullying cultures can indeed make a difference to the quality of a person’s mental health.

Bob Stewart: Leadership in companies is crucially important, as are management and caring about colleagues. We sometimes forget about such things as care for people and leadership, but they should be inculcated in all our companies and other organisations.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman has underlined a point that I intend to make later, and I hope that others will do so as well. Good mental health is everyone’s business, and it is certainly part of the work of business to look after the mental health and well-being of staff. It is key to reducing sickness absence, and to introducing productivity. (in other words improving and not introducing) It has so many benefits for the individual. So the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Leadership and culture are critical, whether in a business organisation or a public service or whatever.
	The vast majority of people do want to work, and this is no small issue. Among the under-65s, nearly half of all illness is mental illness, and the cost to the UK economy exceeds £100 billion a year. The good news is that over the past five years public attitudes towards mental health have begun to change. Indeed, they have changed quite rapidly.

Mark Tami: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a change, but many Members still have people coming to see us who have admitted they have a mental health issue when they have applied for jobs and who are sure that is one of the reasons why they did not get to the next stage of the job interview.

Paul Burstow: That is undoubtedly true and indeed some people do not go through the recruitment process in the first instance because they believe they will be discriminated against or they are fearful of disclosure. Those are serious issues to do with lack of parity and lack of equality, and the discrimination people both impose upon themselves but that also exists within our society. It is why tackling the issue of stigma is so important and why we should celebrate the progress that has been made but also be challenging the Government to continue to support campaigns like Time To Change because they are clearly demonstrating progress.
	The stigma has not gone, but it is going. Time To Change, the anti-stigma campaign set up by Mind and Rethink Mental Illness and funded as part of the Government’s mental health strategy, recorded the biggest annual improvement so far in public attitudes to mental
	health. It found a 7% rise in people’s willingness to work with someone with a mental health problem—from 69% to 76%. We still have to go further, but that is a mark of the progress that has been made, and I hope we can see more.
	The Government have made parity of esteem between physical and mental health the clear goal of their mental health strategy, and progress is being made. However, when it comes to employment and the way people with mental health problems are supported, we still have a long way to go. Four different sets of data lead me to that conclusion. First, according to the OECD, unemployment rates for people with severe mental health problems in the UK are five times higher than for people without a mental health problem. Secondly, a clinical commissioning group outcome indicator on employment and severe mental illness was included in the 2014-15 indicator set. It published its first set of results last December, and it shows a worrying decline in the number of people in paid employment with a severe mental health diagnosis, from 43,000 to 35,000, a significant 20% drop. Thirdly, the CQC’s community mental health survey for 2014 showed that 34% of respondents on the care programme approach, and over half of respondents not on the approach, said they did not receive support from someone in NHS mental health services in getting help with finding or keeping work, but they would have liked that and would like to have been told how to access that support. Fourthly, of the 150,000 people with mental health problems on employment and support allowance who have been placed on the Work programme, just 6.7% have been helped into work. That is compared with a 25% success rate for those without a health condition.
	For me, what this shows is that there is a huge amount still to do. It is worth saying that while the national average employment rate for people with severe mental health problems has dropped to 5.7%, a number of areas are achieving high levels of employment for people with severe mental illness, such as Wokingham, mid-Essex and Aylesbury, all of which are achieving employment rates of 20%.

James Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be scope for the use of individual placement and support for those with serious mental health issues? I know the Government have been piloting some individual placement and support programmes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether they are proving to be successful in getting people with severe mental health problems back into work.

Paul Burstow: Yes; I want to come on to that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the pilots, where they have got to and the intentions going forward. It is inescapable that back-to-work support that is designed primarily around physical health problems and disabilities is poor at meeting the needs of people with mental health problems. Where the support is well-designed, it has so far not got the reach or take-up necessary to make a difference. The Access to Work mental health support service was described in the Sayce review as
	“the best kept secret in Government”,
	because despite its success rates—90% retention rates, for example—very few people have been helped: just over 2,500 people with a mental health problem since the service started in 2011, on the most recent data I could find. The potential is good, but more needs to be done to ensure the take-up of such programmes, so that people can benefit from the advantages that they provide.
	Over the past two years, I have had the opportunity to chair an independent commission on mental health for the think-tank CentreForum and to co-chair a task and finish group on mental health and employment with Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of the charity SANE. That group’s work has led to the NHS adopting an employment-based indicator, and to the development of a new commissioning incentive for NHS organisations to provide for adults who are in contact with secondary mental health services to help them to gain or retain employment. The group is also helping with the drafting of a new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standard on schizophrenia containing a specific reference to employment.

Andrew Bridgen: I have been listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that the incidence of mental health problems increases the risk of unemployment? Does he also acknowledge that unemployment itself has the capacity to induce and exacerbate mental health problems in those who find themselves in the distressing situation of being unemployed?

Paul Burstow: The short answers are yes and yes. In particular, severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia can lead to an increase of 65% in the likelihood of not being in employment unless properly supported. There is clearly an issue there.
	SANE’s report into schizophrenia and employment revealed that, of those who were not engaged in employment or related activities, 59.4% said they would like to be. About 45% of people who receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia recover after one or more episodes, but about 20% show unremitting symptoms and disability, with the remaining 35% showing a mixed pattern with varying periods of remission and relapse. There are therefore issues about how we should tailor support for people with those conditions. Even though health care professionals acknowledge the importance of work, they often hold the view that people with schizophrenia would be better suited to low-skilled, low-responsibility or non-competitive work, but that is a fallacy. It is a mistake and it needs to be challenged vigorously. We need tailored programmes that fit the individual’s circumstances, abilities and needs.
	The evidence of the beneficial nature of work for people with schizophrenia includes increasing social skills and enhancing the opportunity for the development of friendships; learning new skills; financial rewards; and the stabilisation of the condition. Employment brings clear health benefits for people with schizophrenia. Research shows that those in paid employment are over five times more likely to achieve functional recovery than those who are unemployed or in unpaid employment.
	Last year, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), along with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, launched a programme
	to pilot better ways of co-ordinating mental health services and employment services. The pilots are testing a number of different approaches based on the recommendations of the RAND report. This work points the way to a more tailored approach to meeting the needs of people with mental health problems. As I said earlier, the Work programme helps just 6.7% of people with mental health problems into work. In some cases, the way in which different parts of the back-to-work system works has the unintended effect of pushing people further away from the workplace, and that is not what anyone wants.
	So what is next? First, the goal needs to be clear. We have said that we want to close the scandalous 20-year life-expectancy gap that exists in regard to mental health, and we must do more to tackle that issue. We also need to close the opportunity gap. Currently, just 5.7% of adults in contact with secondary mental health services are in paid employment, yet in some areas employment rates are as high as 20%. The goal should be to achieve at least a 20% rate of employment by 2020 across the whole country. That means building on the learning from the pilots. It also means acting on the evidence of what works. In particular, it means much more use of the individual placement and support that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) has just mentioned.
	Individual placement and support has been shown to be twice as likely as any other employment support scheme to enable people with severe mental health problems to enter work. IPS works to secure paid employment that matches the person’s interests and aspirations by co-producing a plan of action, rather than requiring them to undertake certain activities. Support continues once the person gets a job and, as these schemes are often based in secondary mental health care services, they are integrated with the person’s health support. A recent psychological well-being and work report by RAND for the Government estimated the cost-benefit ratio at 1:41 for this approach. In other words, the Government save £1.41 for each pound they spend on IPS models. Where IPS is in use, it is delivering very positive outcomes. For example, WorkPlace Leeds, which is part of Leeds Mind, provides a specialised service, using individualised, tailored and collaborative approaches to enable clients to meet their goals. WorkPlace Leeds uses the IPS model, including CV building; interview skills; job searching; tailored applications; confidence-building; one-to-one sessions; advice on benefits; and practical assistance to overcome barriers such as child care difficulties or public transport issues. It also offers peer employment support interventions to develop confidence and a shared understanding of the struggle to get back to work. It recognises that there are no quick fixes, that the journey can be a long one and that it can sometimes take a lot of support for clients to achieve goals—I am thinking of things such as volunteering or training along the way. Work is the focus—that is the outcome people are striving for—but there is a recognition that the journey is important and needs to be properly supported. Perhaps that story of what happened to Anne-Marie could have been different if she had had access to that sort of support when she returned to work.
	That support is delivered in partnership with the mental health, social care and housing services, all of which play a crucial part, and with the secondary mental health service. WorkPlace Leeds has also worked in partnership with Jobcentre Plus to identify the gaps in service provision—that is crucial to the evolution of services in this area. In other words, there is a joining up at the local level, with a devolved approach that actually seems to work. The annual cost of this approach in Leeds has been put at £5,819, compared with the £13,700 cost to the Work programme of supporting an employment and support allowance claimant.
	So I hope that one thing that will come out of the pilots—I look forward to hearing the Minister’s aspiration for this Government and indeed future Governments—is that a future Government will put in place a programme to improve access to IPS, rather like previous Governments introduced a programme to improve access to psychological therapies. We need that level of drive and determination to make sure that this evidence-based practice becomes the norm, not the exception it is at the moment.
	Finally, surveys have found that mild to moderate mental health problems, including stress, anxiety and depression, are the most common reasons why people are signed off work. The figure cited is that this costs the economy £26 billion every year: That is an average of more than £1,000 for every employee, so it is in everybody’s interests and it is everybody’s business to make sure that we properly support people in the workplace. Although there are great employers who really get mental health and its impact on their employees, as well as their business, and do take the necessary steps, there is still so much more to be done.
	In bringing my remarks to a conclusion, I wish to ask the Minister whether we could make better use of the Health and Safety Executive, a sometimes maligned body which some years ago developed new tools relating to stress audits, which could be used by employers. If the company in Anne-Marie’s story had used a stress audit, it may well have identified some of the things it could change before she got to a crisis and had to leave work. I hope that the Minister will be able to say more about how the HSE and the work it has done in the past could be updated and become part of its day-to-day practice in the future.
	With that, I hope that today’s debate will not only generate a useful exchange across the Chamber, but demonstrate again that there is a commonality of purpose: a recognition that for far too long these issues of mental health had not been given the time, focus or priority they should get, that they are getting that now and that we will make progress in the next Parliament. If we do not, we are not just costing our society a huge amount—we are costing individuals a fortune.

Kevan Jones: May I say what a privilege it is to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow)? This debate is important and it sends a message that, again, this Chamber is discussing mental health. I have said, and I will say it time and again, that the more we talk about mental health, the better. Talking about mental health on the Floor of this main Chamber sends a clear message that this House—Members from all parts of it—is taking mental health seriously.
	Clearly, work is central to most people’s lives. Mountains of research suggest that the right type of work is good and positive for somebody’s mental health. In this debate, I want to focus on three main areas. The first is mental illness and the benefit system—we cannot talk about unemployment without mentioning the benefit system. The second is how we manage long-term mental health problems in the community. Realistically, there are individuals who will not be able to work or hold down full-time jobs, so we need mechanisms by which we can support them in the community. The third area, which is related to unemployment, is how mental health is dealt with in the modern workplace in the UK.
	Many people may ask: why is mental health in the workplace important? Well, to coin a phrase from Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Bad mental health is bad for the UK economy. The UK report on mental health in the workplace, commissioned in February 2014, estimated that it cost the UK economy some £70 billion a year—4.5% of GDP. In the current economic climate, a reduction in that figure, which was drawn up using Department for Work and Pensions data and OECD and Eurostat labour market figures, would be welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is also another important issue here, which is that it is good for the individual. In a decent modern society, we should ensure that people’s mental health is not harmed by the work that they do. We must remember that it is not just the individual who is harmed, but the families as well.
	The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about the number of individuals who are on employment and support allowance, some 46% of whom have mental health problems. We have heard the rhetoric over the past few years about trying to be tough on welfare claimants and about getting people off benefits. No doubt we will hear more of that in the run-up to the general election. But I am not sure that such rhetoric helps the people with mental health problems who are claiming benefits.
	The evidence is clear that the work capability test has been a complete disaster for people who have mental health conditions. It has also been a complete financial disaster for the Government. It does not work for the people it is supposed to support and it does not help the taxpayer.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend mentions the situation in the workplace with regard to mental health. I was very interested in what the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said about the Health and Safety Executive enlarging its role in this area. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Does he think that it could play a role?

Kevan Jones: I do, yes. There seems to be this feeling that business should be afraid of the Health and Safety Executive. I know from my previous life, that it is good not just at dealing with stress but at driving up standards and productivity in the workplace. It ensures that the working environment is safe, so, yes, there is an opportunity there.
	Like other Members, I have seen in my constituency the merry-go-round system of the work capability test. It goes a bit like this: a person is assessed by Atos, by
	people who have no mental health training whatever; he or she fails a fit-for-work test and is then put in a work-related group; he or she then appeals that decision and has their benefits reinstated. Then, ludicrously, within a matter of months, that person gets recalled to Atos, and they are on that merry go round again. That is not only bad for the individual but a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, as there is the cost not just of the assessments but of the appeals. The appeals system has been overloaded with people and has had to employ more staff, and that is not an efficient way of dealing with these individuals.
	Charities in the north-east, such as Mental Health North East, have explained this expensive merry go round and have done very good reports on the numbers. Hundreds of people in the north-east of England are on the merry-go-round system, which has a tragic effect not only on the individuals but on their families. In some cases, it puts back people’s mental health rather than improving it. We should not shy away from the fact that there have been some cases nationally in which, because of the Atos system, people have taken their own lives. No Government should be proud of that.
	People are under pressure, not just from the work capability test but from the economic downturn. Statistics came out last month that showed that the number of suicides now, at just over 6,000, is higher than it was two and three years ago. Surprisingly enough, the north-east of England is the region with the highest number of people—young men, mainly—committing suicide. I find it very uncomfortable that in 2015 we have a system that puts these pressures on individuals and that the major killer for men aged 20 to 34 is suicide. We need to address that, not just because it is the right thing to do but because of the economic case. That is 6,000 people who are not making a contribution to the economy of this country. We should also remember that 6,000 families will be hugely affected by the loss of a loved one. Each one is a personal tragedy and each one, like a ripple, has an effect on an entire community. It is important that we address the issue because we cannot have avoidable deaths going unchecked. Whatever happens after May, dealing with suicide and mental illness must be taken forward on a cross-party basis.
	As for the Government’s response to the Atos merry-go-round, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) is right that after four years they have finally worked out that it is not an effective way of dealing with people with mental illness on benefits and have put in place pilot schemes that go broadly in the right direction. However, like the right hon. Gentleman, I want to ask the Minister what the timescale is for rolling them out across the country. I am also of the opinion that we need to take people who have mental health issues out of the system. I do not argue for one minute that they should not be assessed at all, but putting them through the Atos system is not the way to do it. If we can ensure that they get the individual help and care that they need, that will not only help them return to work or gain access to work but save the taxpayer a great deal of money.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but does he not agree that at the heart of this is the knowledge that we need sensitively trained and highly professional people
	to deal with these individuals, not an Atos-type untrained person? That is certainly the case in my constituency. We need highly trained people, whether they come from the health sector and are fully professional or whether, as in my constituency, they come from the voluntary and social sector.

Kevan Jones: I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised that, because I was coming next to the important role there is for the community and voluntary sector. We need to explore an alternative system. If we conclude that some people cannot work, we need to be able to offer them alternatives, and like the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, I am a big believer in voluntary and charitable work. If people cannot hold down a permanent job—it may not necessarily be their fault; it may be that some employers do not understand that someone who has a severe long-term mental health problem will not be able to turn up to work every day—why not allow them to do voluntary work, which both improves their position and gives something back to society? Social isolation is one of the worst things possible for people with long-term mental health conditions. Enabling such individuals to make some contribution to society would also help them.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the charitable and voluntary sector has a key role to play, not only in getting people back to work but in the long-term management of people with long-term mental health conditions in the community. The Government talk a lot about the community and voluntary sector, and the Heath and Social Care Act 2012 contained a provision that I considered helpful—I was scorned by some of my colleagues for thinking this—which was that third sector bodies could be commissioned to deliver local services. In practice, that has not happened because the contracts that are being let are too big and too complex, and many third sector organisations that do fantastic work locally do not have the capacity to bid for them.
	The present system is a scandal. The Just for Women Centre in Stanley, in my constituency, is a great organisation run by Linda Kirk, a former business woman, and Lestryne Tweedy. The centre caters for women who are suffering from domestic violence or mental health-related issues and those who have been on probation. The model is very simple: it uses counselling and crafts to support the individual and look at their underlying mental health issues before moving on to getting them into work. The centre uses individual tailored programmes, which can lead to individuals being with the centre for two years, but the success rate is fantastic and the cost is less than £800 per job placement. That contrasts starkly with the nearly £4,000 the Government pay companies such as Ingeus and others that get people into work.
	The situation is even worse than that. Not only can small charities such as the Just for Women Centre not bid for the contract but, disgracefully, if women who come to the centre are also on Ingeus’ books and the centre gets those women into work, Ingeus rings them up and asks them whether they have got into work, they say yes, and Ingeus claims the money, but the Just for Women Centre—the charity—does not get a single penny of it. I hope the Minister will look into the details of this, because it is not just happening in County
	Durham. We need a method whereby small charities can access the contracts, because I think they would do the work a lot cheaper and more cost-effectively.
	We also need a system for managing people long-term in the community. Another fantastic centre in Durham is the Waddington Street Centre, which through education, therapy and other activities, manages people in the community. I pay tribute to Steve Wakefield and his staff, and the chair, Professor Fred Robinson. Like the Just for Women Centre, the Waddington Street Centre cannot access any of these contracts and has to rely on charitable donations. We all know that the charitable sector is being cut, so we need some method whereby those organisations can get access.
	Finally, I want to focus on mental health in the workplace, because it is a subject we do not talk about much. As I said, mental health issues cost this country some 4.5% of GDP; most Chancellors of the Exchequer would salivate over the savings to be made by reducing that by 1% or 2%. The question is why mental health in the workplace is not a higher priority for the Government and for UK plc. Part of the answer is the workplace culture—the belief in this country that by working every hour God sends, we will be more productive, and also the belief that any talk of mental health in the workplace is fluffy and vague.
	However, some businesses, such as BT, have taken a board-level decision to address mental health issues in the workplace. I congratulate the Communication Workers Union on its work with BT management to put in place support mechanisms and awareness campaigns on mental health and the early warning signs of problems. The results of this approach speak for themselves. In BT’s case, the number of employees off work on sickness absence because of mental health problems has decreased by 30% over the past five years. Among those who have been off work more than six months for mental health reasons, there has been an astounding 80% return rate, compared with the national average of less than 20%.

James Morris: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and the examples he gives from BT are very interesting. Is it not the case that we need to flip the way we think about mental health in the workplace? It is not a problem to be managed, but an opportunity to be taken. Many people on a mental health recovery journey can be some of the most creative and productive employees in an organisation, so we need to embed that approach into HR practice and drive productivity that way.

Kevan Jones: I agree. The focus should be on mental well-being, rather than mental illness, in the workplace. I spoke to the managing director of BT and asked why the company adopted the approach that I described and whether it was aiming to be a good corporate citizen. The answer was no. The firm does it for hard, brass-tacks reasons—it is good for business. It sees the fragility of poor mental health among its employees as a risk to its business model. I am sure that is the case in other types of business too. BT has recognised that and put the appropriate mechanisms in place. We need a system for that to be rolled out among other companies in the UK.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. I thoroughly agree with what he says about
	mental health in the workplace. Will he pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Mind that are producing training packages for dealing with mental health issues in the workplace? As he says, those are a huge cost to organisations and to the individuals involved. Mental health issues are the No. 1 cause of absenteeism from the workplace, and systematic training is needed across all workplaces.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate Mind on its mental health training. I shall come on to suggest the next step for Government. Raising the issue of stigma and talking about mental health is very important.

Andrew Stunell: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman says about bringing people with mental health difficulties back into employment. I hope he will acknowledge the work done by Disability Confident, a scheme supported and run by the DWP which recently ran a presentation in my constituency. A number of large employers were brought to the presentation and for the very first time challenged with the opportunities that exist, as opposed to defining mental health issues as a problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great scope for such an initiative to be taken beyond the pilot stage across the whole country?

Kevan Jones: Indeed. The test is to make that a must for business. The next Government of whatever shade should make it compulsory. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) referred earlier to the Health and Safety Executive, which has a key role to play in that. Mental health issues should not be seen as a threat to businesses. The challenge is to help businesses of whatever size to perform better not only by being good to their individual employees, but by being more productive as part of the economy.
	There is a huge challenge here. We must take seriously this issue, which should be seen not just as one of health. It must be tackled across Government. Whichever party is in Government after May, and especially if it is my party, I will be arguing strongly that we need a cross-Government initiative so that all Departments ask what is being done to promote good mental health, not only within the Department but in the development of vital policies. If we get this right, it makes economic common sense and can grow the UK economy. That is the dynamic that will make people sit up and think about making this a reality.

Charles Walker: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
	Mental health in the workplace is undoubtedly hugely important, but mental health is a continuum throughout life. It starts in the earliest years when it is a matter of the relationship between a baby and their mother and father. If we can improve those early years, we improve children’s chances of having good mental health throughout their lives.
	Mental health is about resilience and building resilience. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be concerned, as I am, that headmasters in primary and secondary schools now talk about the levels of self-harm in their schools. It is extraordinarily worrying that
	young children at primary and secondary school are self-harming. They feel so desperate, so out of control, so out of touch, perhaps, with their peers, that the only way they can relieve that pressure is through harming themselves, through cutting themselves. Of course, mental illness manifests itself in other ways, such as depression and a feeling of isolation.
	If we are to enable workplaces to flourish, we need to ensure that our young people can flourish. I urge the Government, in looking at the mental health piece, to see it as a joined-up continuum. Without good mental health in the early years and in schools, we will not have good mental health in the workplace, despite the best efforts of employers.
	The truth is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) have identified, the longer one is out of work, the less chance there is of rejoining work. A couple of years ago, President Obama’s mental health adviser came to speak in the United Kingdom, and a huge amount of work has been done in the United States about exclusion from the workplace. It just is simply the case that if people have a mental health crisis at work and leave that workplace for even a short period, their chances of returning are diminished, and the longer they are away, the less chance they have of getting back into any form of work. We need to be mindful of that. I congratulate the Minister for recognising that. I know that he is doing some important thinking in this area. An article yesterday in the Evening Standard described the efforts, led by the Minister, to ensure that people who have been out of work for a long period have the pathways back into work.
	Why is work important? It is important because a lot of the time it is fun. It is not fun all of the time; nothing is fun all of the time. But a lot of the time work is fun. It is challenging. It is where we socialise. It is where we meet and make friends. It is where we become part of a team. It is where we achieve. It is where we have success. It is sad to think that there are people who have mental health problems—a period of mental unwellness—who are excluded from this environment, from all those successes, all the things that we enjoy and, on occasions, take for granted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—I call him my hon. Friend because I have known him for so many years and we have talked about this on so many occasions that it would be churlish to call him anything but my hon. Friend—made a very insightful and incisive point: what does success look like? Success will not always be going straight into a full-time job. Actually, success might be never going back into a full-time job. Success for one individual might be leaving their home and going out to do some voluntary work for the third sector, perhaps starting off by working one or two days every couple of weeks, moving to one day a week, and then to three or four days a week. It means engaging with the community, being part of a team and being valued and appreciated as an individual. I hope that the option of progressing back into full-time work will be available to all people, but let us not set that as the only benchmark, because for some it will be unobtainable. We need to ensure that there is a way back to some form of engagement in the workplace that meets the spiritual and emotional needs of people recovering from a mental health setback.
	A number of colleagues have rightly focused on the efforts of British Telecom, and I would also like to mention Legal & General. They recognise that mental health impacts on all their performers, including their high performers. A good employer should not want to lose anyone for the wrong reasons, but they certainly do not want to lose their best and most productive employees. I do not think that there is anything wrong with British Telecom making a commercial decision that it is in its interests to ensure that it supports its work force. Indeed, it is to be applauded for doing so.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam observed, where are the other employers? We know that they are out there, because it cannot just be two—BT and Legal & General. They need to make some noise. We do not want them to be shy. We want them to stand up, shoulder to shoulder, and say, “This is important to us.” If more companies said that, others would want to stand up and say it too, and then we will get a movement going—we like nothing more in this place than getting a movement going. We will have many voices saying in unison, “This is important to us.” Those voices might employ just a few people locally, but they employ up to tens of thousands nationally.
	As has already been observed, we cannot separate mental well-being from physical well-being. Many employers now have company gyms and all sorts of schemes to get their employers fit and healthy physically, but mental well-being is just as important—perhaps even more so—and that is where more focus and emphasis is needed.
	We must also ensure that people who are going through a period of difficulty and turmoil have good coping mechanisms and strategies. Again, the employer can be at the forefront of that. It is not always the case, but too often people who are struggling can find that their coping mechanisms revolve around substance abuse and misuse, and that is in no one’s interests—not the employee’s, not their family’s and not their employer’s. We need employers to be at the forefront by not only looking at their staff’s physical health, but placing a huge premium and emphasis on their mental well-being.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points. What does he think about a possible requirement—voluntary or otherwise—on companies to report on their human capital, because it is an important risk factor for investors if companies do not properly look after their staff and have higher turnover rates as a result? I wonder whether that might push employers to focus on these matters more.

Charles Walker: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will conclude my speech by answering it. Most companies like to talk about the importance they place on human capital, but I suspect that very few do it very well. That is why I think it is so important for good employers to stand up and say, “This is what we are doing and it can be audited, so you can prove for yourselves that we are doing what it says on the tin.” I am not into naming and shaming companies, or coercion—that is the wrong way to go—but there has to be a premium and a reward placed on good practice. I join
	my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in saying to Government that we need to give that some thought. We do not want to come up with a stick; we want to come up with carrots so that good employers are celebrated, and celebrated loudly.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on setting the scene very well for each and every one of us. I also thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his impassioned plea on behalf of those who have mental illnesses and need employment. Several right hon. and hon. Members have made very detailed contributions. We look forward to the Minister’s response, because this issue concerns us all.
	These are the sorts of debates that I like to be involved in because they are about the nitty-gritty of our constituencies and the issues that people bring to our offices every day and wish us to speak on. I deal with this issue in my office every day when we see people who are struggling to cope with mental health illnesses and problems. These are made worse by the times we live in and the pressures on those in work and those on benefits. The hon. Member for North Durham mentioned benefits. Of late, I have seen greater need in people who suffer from depression as they have had to deal with issues that they never in their life had to deal with before. Poverty.org has said that people who are working are at much lower risk of mental illness than those who are unemployed or long-term sick or disabled. The proportions of those assessed as being at high risk are between 10% and 20% for those who are working, about 30% for those who are unemployed, and 50% for those who are long-term sick or disabled.
	One of the biggest issues that I see in my office is the benefits system. A lady in my office—one of my staff members—now deals with nothing but benefits issues. That is because of the enormity of the change that has come about. The hon. Member for North Durham referred to the “ESA merry-go-round”. We have all experienced that. I have had cases where constituents have had to be assessed for ESA three times in one year. I fail to understand why that happens. Is there that dramatic a change within four months, or six months? I understand the need for the system, but not the need for a regular three-times-a-year assessment of someone who is clearly ill.
	I want to give an example, as we all can; the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about one of his constituents. I will not mention any names but I will tell the story. I recently helped a helped a young lady of 32 with her disability living allowance form. She suffers from a very serious case of chronic inflammation of the bowel. Over the past five years, she has had to go down to part-time hours, and she eventually lost her job due to her periods of sickness. This in turn has led to her suffering from depression, which has made her illness worse, and she is now at a stage where she cannot go out to work and being in the house just makes everything worse in her life. She said to me, “Even if I am well, Jim, who is going to hire me with my record? I just can’t see any light in my future.” That was a terrible thing for this young girl to say. After that appointment, where the girl said little and her mother outlined most of the illness, I asked myself, “What is the system doing
	to help her and others in her situation?” Undoubtedly, inability to find a job or to work is a massive factor in mental health. These constituents—there are many of them—worry and concern us. With all due respect, I seriously question that the system is right in this circumstance.
	The hon. Member for North Durham referred to isolation. I want to make a point on behalf of those in rural isolation. My constituency is split about 50:50 between urban and countryside, so I am aware of the rural isolation of people who live alone, who are unemployed, who have little or no family contact, and who find every day a challenge in their homes—those who, as a result of their unemployment and rural isolation, become depressed. We have to reach those people as well. This is an issue that burdens me greatly.
	The poverty.org website states:
	“Research suggests a connection between the conflict and the risk of mental ill-health within Northern Ireland”.
	Everyone present knows of the 30-year conflict in Northern Ireland, during which a great number of people were affected emotionally and mentally by what took place. The website states that
	“the greater the extent to which someone’s area or life is affected by it, the greater the likelihood that they have poorer mental health. How far the conflict explains the overall levels of mental ill-health in Northern Ireland is less clear…Among those who chose to answer questions about their experience of the conflict, 7% indicated that they themselves had been injured during it, while a further 36% indicated that a close relative or friend had either been injured or killed. Putting these two figures together implies that in the early years of this decade, around half a million people had been affected by the conflict in this way.”
	That gives an idea of the magnitude of what took place in Northern Ireland: it has affected those of us who came through it.
	The figures show that mental health is a greater issue in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. When someone is under pressure or stress and worried about whether they will live or die, they turn to drink, drugs or other things, and that affects their lifestyle. Ultimately, a great number of people in Northern Ireland suffer from depression and mental health issues because of our country’s past.
	There is an advert in Northern Ireland—I suspect there are similar ones across the whole of the United Kingdom—that shows a young boy who is the life and soul of the party. He is the one telling the jokes and who is involved in everything that is going on, but when he leaves his friends and goes home, the door closes and he becomes a different person. Sometimes a person’s outward appearance can be bubbly and seemingly cheerful, but the fact is that, when they return home on their own, depression sets in. Colleagues in the workplace can address such issues, and that is also a job for family and friends.
	The Prince’s Trust has found that between 10% and 20% of teenagers from Northern Ireland will suffer from depression at some point in that short period of their lives. More than one in three—35%—of youngsters there had experienced mental health issues, compared with the United Kingdom national average of almost one in five, which is 19%. There is a greater level of depression among younger people in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. The Prince’s Trust also revealed that long-term unemployed 16 to 25-year-olds are twice
	as likely as their peers to be prescribed anti-depressants and believe that they have nothing to live for. We have a role to play in addressing that.
	I will mention the suicide rate later. Unfortunately, a large number of young people who were unable to cope with life took what they felt was the only way out. I know that the Minister’s response to the debate will be positive—it always is—and I would like him to address what we can do together to try to solve some of the problems. I look forward to hearing his contribution.
	Ian Jeffers, director of the Prince’s Trust in Northern Ireland, has said that the trust’s report comes at a time when long-term youth unemployment has shot up by 197% since the start of the recession in 2008. Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to mention February’s unemployment rates, which show a clear drop of 17.9% in unemployment among young people over the past 12 months, so steps are being taken to create employment opportunities. If we look at overall employment in Northern Ireland, we see that almost 10,000 jobs have been created over a recent period.
	Ian Jeffers says:
	“Unemployment is proven to cause devastating, long-lasting mental health problems among young people…Thousands wake up every day believing that life isn’t worth living, after struggling for years in the dole queue. Across Northern Ireland, 5,450 young people are facing long-term unemployment”—
	there is still work to do—
	“and there is a real danger that these young people will feel hopeless, as well as jobless.”
	The research highlighted that people suffering from depression would be less likely to ask for help in that circumstance.
	The poll, which gives a very accurate flavour of what is happening, revealed that more than one in three or 34% of young people said that they always or often feel down or depressed, compared with a national average of 32%, and the long-term unemployed are significantly more likely to feel that way. One in four or 29% said that they feel like an outcast, compared with 24% nationally, and the report found that the long-term unemployed are significantly more likely to feel that way. More than one in five or 21% admitted that they feel like a “waste of space”. How often have Members heard that comment? It may have been said frivolously on many occasions, but such young people react in a much more difficult and serious way. That figure is against a national average of 17%, and the long-term unemployed are more than twice as likely to feel that way.
	The youth charity the Prince’s Trust has said that it will support 58,000 disadvantaged young people this year. About 280 of those surveyed were not in education, employment or training, 166 had been unemployed for more than six months and 135 had been jobless for a year or more. Almost one in five young people looking for a job at present cannot find one in today’s marketplace.
	I believe that it is our job to look at and address the issue of people who are not qualified. There is a problem in Northern Ireland among young Protestants who for some reason do not have the educational qualifications that they should have. I understand that it is a devolved matter, but I suspect that there are other parts of the United Kingdom where people do not have the qualifications they need.
	The statistics are horrifying; yet they are not a complete shock. The number of young people who come to my office for benefit and housing help is very sad, when I think of how much I loved having my first job and getting my first pay cheque. We have a generation of young people who are waiting on their benefit cheque with nothing else to live for. Is it any wonder that we have a serious problem with mental health issues?
	Suicide in the community is a great worry for all of us as elected representatives. Every one of us has dealt with families—with people we know personally, or with their families—who have lost loved ones who took their own lives because they felt that there was no way forward. I have asked myself this question, as many others have probably done: if I had known, could I in some way have persuaded that person not to do what he or she did? It is always a very difficult question to answer, but the fact is that we do not know. All we can do is to do our best in this world: to speak to the people who come to see us and to try to give them some hope that they can look forward with positivity. Those are some of the issues, but if such people are coming off the back of terrible depression or terrible pressure, they do not know where they can go next.
	The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency states on its website that 14,968 deaths were registered in Northern Ireland in 2013, of which 303 were suicides—the second highest number on record in Northern Ireland after the 313 recorded in 2010—and just over three quarters, or 229, of the suicides in 2013 were young men. That highlights why this debate on mental health and unemployment is so important. It is a chance for the House to shine a light on how we can help such young people to move from their mental health problems into employment, and how we can help them to achieve their vision, goal and challenge for the future.
	The link between unemployment and mental health issues is clear, and it is time that strategies were put in place to deal with those issues. Are we getting this right at present? I do not believe we are, but that does not mean that we should stop trying. For the sake of families throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we must and we can do better.

Adam Afriyie: I was not sure whether I would make it to this debate, given my other responsibilities, but I am very glad that I have. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate, and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for opening it.
	This is an important debate, not only for those with mental health challenges who are unemployed, but because it is something that I think strikes at the heart of what we are all doing in politics. With millions of people affected—one in four people will be affected by a mental health challenge in their lifetime—this issue lies at the heart of what it is to be human, to be British, and to be part of a democratic society. Right now in this Chamber, across the House, in our offices and across the country, probably one in six or seven people is struggling with some form of mental health challenge. That says to me
	that it is part of the normality of the human condition, and surely as Members of Parliament and Government, and as law makers, we must bear that in mind when making the laws of the land.
	Across the Conservative Benches, and perhaps across the House, it often seems that our objective in politics is to seek the greatest level of utility for the greatest number of people. It strikes me, however, that GDP growth, incomes, salaries, and the growth in physical goods and services that we consume, is not necessarily the best aim. Indeed, I am not sure that that is the fundamental aim we all share, and it seems that a better motto, modus operandi and objective—one that I suspect we all share—would be to create the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people. It is not that as politicians we can work out how to make people happy—that would be preposterous and ridiculous—but some things are certain to make people unhappy, or to create stress and the sense of a lack of control that leads to a greater prevalence of mental health challenges.
	When I first arrived in Parliament in 2005 I co-wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Forgotten”. My chapter was on those with depression who, almost by virtue of that condition if they are going through an experience at the time of an election, are kind of disfranchised from society and the democratic process. One of my burning passions is to ensure that everyone, no matter what their background or mental health condition, is able to participate in the democratic process, and is also never forgotten.
	We certainly do not know how to create happiness—I would be very nervous if anyone suggested that they know how to create happiness for somebody else. However, when it comes to public services and law making we can do a lot to remove the causes of unhappiness, depression, or the exacerbating factors that lead to greater levels of depression and mental health challenges.
	On the causes of mental health challenges, there is certainly a degree of genetic propensity—that is becoming ever clearer as scientific research progresses. There are also specific causes of such challenges in life, such as bereavement, certainly of a close family member. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his comments on the fact that in troubled zones during times of war or conflict the incidence of mental health challenges rises immediately because of changes to what is going on around people. Mental health challenges can be brought forward or exacerbated by accidents, or by the loss of a job or a divorce. Those are known causes or accelerating factors for mental health challenges, and are things for us to consider when making policy.
	One area is almost entirely within our control—this is why I am delighted to participate in the debate today—because we can have an impact on the welfare and benefits system, and on how the state enables or helps people to find employment, or to get training or education. I was particularly mindful and supportive of many of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the systems we introduce for getting people back into work, or identifying whether they have challenges. One of the greatest forms of stress and pressure—which can cause depression and trigger other mental health challenges—is a feeling that our life is out of our control. We have a complicated benefits system, and people have to jump through many hoops to achieve recognition within it.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to tailor-make back-to-work programmes and recognise that on some occasions it might take longer than others to get people capable of work? We also need a system that allows people with long-term mental health issues who are not going to work at least to make some positive contribution to society.

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head—that is precisely it. The distribution of traits within mankind and the British population is like a bell curve. Every person is unique. There are very few identical twins. Certain mental health conditions require a longer period of adjustment before people are able to participate in the workplace or in voluntary activities that make a contribution to society. Any system must be flexible enough to recognise that difference.
	On the feeling that one’s life is out of one’s control, let us imagine—I will create a caricature here—someone from a tough background with literacy difficulties, perhaps dyslexia, who has just gone through a divorce and is presented with forms up to 70 pages long when trying to get some form of support from the state. The idea that someone who is in a very difficult state is able to navigate this incredibly complex system is tantamount to mental cruelty. There have been cases in the press recently where parents of children with difficulties have had to deal with a stream of health workers, disability benefit support staff, jobcentre workers and council workers knocking on their door. That can create a huge amount of stress and a sense that life is beyond one’s control. We have to be mindful of that and ensure that public services fit people who are going through a mental health episode.
	I want to say some positive things about mental health, unemployment and employment. Mental health challenges are part of the normal human condition. Probably one in four of us here will struggle with a mental health challenge at some point in our lifetime. I am sure that all MPs have seen people in their surgeries who present with a problem—for example, they are unemployed and are having difficulties finding work and navigating the benefits system—and realise that there is something more behind the initial problem. Sometimes it will be depression, bipolar or paranoia, and they will need further assistance and support.
	If we are to have a society that is at ease with itself, the stigma of mental health conditions needs to disappear. It is part of our job—not just in this debate, but in our daily lives—to ensure that we are relaxed about talking about mental health conditions, no matter what they are. In many cases, I welcome the idea that people joke about mental health conditions. I do not mean that people should do so in a derogatory way, but that jokes are part of our normal discourse. Whether in Parliament, in Westminster or in a business, people stand by a coffee machine and talk about so and so breaking a leg when they were skiing. Everyone has a laugh about it, asks the person how they are and then writes their name on the cast. I do not want mental health challenges to be part of a sort of corridor whisper. We should be able to laugh and talk—“so and so is having a bit of trouble at the moment”—and be very relaxed about them, because they are part of our human condition.
	Another positive thing about people with mental health challenges in the workplace is this: yes, British Telecom has recognised the benefits of employing people
	who may have challenges, but a raft of smaller firms have also recognised those benefits. In my working career in the world of business in the 20 years before I entered politics—I suppose this is work as well—I came across many enlightened small businesses that, on many occasions, competed for people with mental challenges such as depression or bipolar. I will try to put this subtly. When somebody is struggling with bipolar and is in a good period, they can be exceptionally creative and productive. That is very useful, provided one recognises that when they are in a down period they need flexibility and understanding. A lot of small businesses would benefit from recruiting people with certain mental health challenges for particular roles in their organisation.
	It is my experience, from having observed businesses over the years, that those that recognise these challenges and show flexibility actually perform exceptionally well. So even being less altruistic, this is a great opportunity to create work forces that are up to the mark, dedicated and loyal and which go the extra mile in the good times, because people with mental health challenges are a great resource on which to draw. As others have said, however, it would be helpful to have guidelines or suggestions, perhaps from the public sector but certainly from bodies such as Mind and others, on how to work with people with mental health challenges, particularly for small businesses.
	I hope that Opposition Members will bear with me for a moment, because I want to touch on the coalition’s welfare changes, many of which were initiated under the previous Labour Government. In many respects, we should take our hats off to the direction of travel. One of the greatest pressures is to be young and unemployed and to feel unwanted, as it can exacerbate the feeling of isolation from society. However, although the welfare changes that the coalition has made or is seeking to make might not be perfect, they do represent the correct direction of travel. I know that many Opposition Members agree. If we can help somebody into work—not in a brutal way—we can give them that sense of meaning, control and well-being that comes from knowing that even if they have a mental health challenge they are still welcome in the work force. These are positive things that MPs can do to enfranchise the large minority that struggles from time to time.

Kevan Jones: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—if it is the right type of help. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I mentioned, for someone suffering from a long-term mental health condition, this merry-go-round system we have is pretty brutish and needs refining. Otherwise, it will not only waste taxpayers’ money but create a lot of unhappiness and fear among people with long-term mental health issues.

Adam Afriyie: I think we agree. Indeed, I was about to focus on how we could significantly improve the way the system works for people with mental health challenges. First, on public services, particularly welfare to work arrangements, we need to be very finely attuned to the processes undertaken. Somebody with a mental health challenge might initially appear to be absolutely fine, but if they are put through a very mechanistic—the hon. Gentleman said “brutish”—mechanistic process that makes no allowances for such challenges, it can do more harm than good.

Kevan Jones: I do not disagree, but one of the fundamental flaws that I and others have been raising for several years is that Atos assessors are not mental health trained. Having assessors with expertise in mental health would be a huge step forward in helping those individuals, yet the Government have ignored the matter for the last few years.

Adam Afriyie: I am not sure the Government have ignored it. I have been in meetings where it has been carefully discussed, so it is certainly on the agenda. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point, however, and I am sure we will get to it on the other side of the upcoming election. Thus far, the focus has been on shaping the overall system in the right way, but unquestionably it will need refinement to ensure that in the first level of interaction the system quickly identifies people who might require a greater focus on their mental health and well-being than the average person.
	I can give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that once we are through this short period before the election, and if we are both fortunate enough to be here afterwards, I will be happy to work with him and others in the Chamber to ensure that mental health conditions are better recognised or integrated within the process. We had a huge mountain to climb just to change the system in the first instance, but greater sensitivity is certainly needed now.
	Four or five years ago, in Windsor, I knocked on the door of a very elderly lady. She had found in her letter box a form connected with a consultation on whether a local development should proceed. She was clearly struggling with a mental health condition at the time, and was agonising over whether she should fill in the massive form. There was another form from the council, and another relating to planning. I almost did not have the heart, but just about had the heart, to say to her, “The form is merely about a consultation, and, given the hundreds of forms that will be sent back, what you write on this one may have only a very small impact on the outcome. You might be better off seeing your family, having relatives to visit, and actually enjoying your life.”
	What I gleaned from that encounter was that having to deal with lengthy forms and deeply bureaucratic processes may—unnecessarily, in many cases—take away the quality of people’s lives, particularly when those people are unemployed. That, I believe, should be a secondary focus for us, and for any future Government. We should think about the way in which we ask people to participate in our bureaucratic procedures to obtain assistance and return to work. We should ask ourselves whether the length of forms is a problem, and whether matters could be dealt with a little more quickly on the telephone or face to face, given that that some people might be struggling with a challenge at the time.
	I know that we are having a quiet afternoon in the Chamber today, but I think that we have a responsibility to continue to talk about this issue—not only in debates such as this, but in the context of every brief that we may hold, every Committee in which we may participate, and every Bill that we may examine. We must keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that a very large proportion of the British population are struggling with mental health challenges. Every policy that we create must be designed to reflect that, and to accommodate such people.
	Here is one more idea that may be of use at some point in the future. I love the idea of the market. I love the idea of businesses competing to hire employees, and I love the idea that competing small businesses—as well as one or two larger ones—that are desperate to hire staff at a time of low unemployment will one day place an imprimatur on their websites and recruitment pages, declaring that theirs is a mental health-friendly working environment. Indeed, it would be curious if they did not do so. I believe that if small and medium-sized businesses—indeed, all businesses—do not take that route, they will be hamstringing themselves and preventing themselves from taking advantage of the best employees that they can recruit from the marketplace.
	This is my vision for politics. I want to see a country that is at ease with itself, and with people from different backgrounds and different walks of life. A country that is at ease with itself must acknowledge that, at any one time, a large minority of its population will face mental health challenges, but that those people are equally part of society. The policies that we create in this place must be user-friendly, and take account of people from all sorts of backgrounds and with all sorts of conditions.
	I am optimistic about the future. Why? Because there is no doubt that Labour, Liberal Democrat, Independent and Conservative Members all recognise that the issue of mental health represents a serious challenge for a large proportion of the population, and I am confident that any future Government will pay more attention to it than we have in the past.

Kate Green: I thank all Members who have contributed to what I think has been a very interesting and rich debate. I especially thank the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) for introducing, in a wide-ranging speech, all the issues on which others have expanded.
	There is clearly widespread concern about the poor employment outcomes and poor employment experience of people with mental health disorders. Those concerns are wide-ranging. There is obviously a concern about the poor employment rate among people with mental health problems and the fact that unemployment is both a cause and a result of poor mental health. Particular concerns were rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the implications for young people who experience unemployment at the very start of their adult lives. There are also concerns about people with mental health illnesses being dismissed or exiting work prematurely, about a lack of not just joining the workplace but progression in the workplace—relatively reduced chances for promotion—about lack of support in the workplace for people with mental health problems and, as was highlighted in the debate this afternoon, about so-called presenteeism, which is damaging for both the health and well-being of the individual and business productivity.
	Such concerns about the cost both to the individual and society have been highlighted a number of times this afternoon. Poorer mental health outcomes are suffered by poorer people, who are less likely to be in employment. We also know that 39% of sickness absence is as a result of mental health problems, amounting to 11.3 million working days lost to our economy each year.
	We have also heard this afternoon concerns about the wider context in which mental health problems in the workplace arise and are then addressed. There are problems with people accessing therapies and treatments to deal early with mental health difficulties, and we have rightly heard quite a bit this afternoon about stigma and discrimination and what can be done to tackle that.
	I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) about the importance of dealing with mental health difficulties among children and young people and intervening early to address them. Many mental health problems begin in childhood—before the age of 18—yet we know that only 6% of spending on therapeutic mental health services is through child and adolescent mental health services, so there is clearly a massive imbalance in the way in which we are spending our resources to address the problems in the pre-adult years, as compared with picking up the pieces afterwards when so much damage has been done.
	Concerns were also expressed this afternoon about the extent to which programmes that should be helping are not doing so. We heard quite a lot about difficulties with the benefits system and problems with some of the work support programmes, which mean we cannot be complacent about an employment rate of 37% among people with mental health problems against an overall employment rate of 77%.
	As we heard this afternoon, in most cases being in work is beneficial for mental health, although in her 2013 report for the Government on mental health and work Dame Carol Black rightly set out a number of caveats to that, including the quality of the job and the degree of autonomy or control that is enjoyed by an employee. However, we also know that people who are not working because of a mental health problem represent the largest proportion of those who would like to be in employment. The reasons why they are not working are partly to do with lack of access to the therapies and care that would make work possible.
	We have heard on many occasions of significant delays in accessing so-called talking therapies, and we must be concerned that one driver of the rise in the number of people being placed on the support group of employment and support allowance because of mental health problems may be that people cannot get access to the health care they need.
	We must also pay attention to the particular anxiety identified by the independent reviewer, Dr Paul Litchfield, about the very large number of young people in the support group or the work-related activity group of ESA who have mental health difficulties. The fact that we are parking some of those young people on to a benefit without properly intervening early, and the fact that the way in which the system operates exacerbates and encourages a disregard of early intervention, is something I know the Minister expressed his own concerns about in his appearance before the Select Committee recently.
	Repeated reports have recommended the much more effective joining up of employment support and mental health services. I very much welcome the introduction of specific indicators for mental health and employment in the NHS outcomes framework, but we also know that there are long delays in accessing therapies and that doctors can be reluctant to identify a mental health problem or sometimes fail to recognise that a patient
	could work or that work would be beneficial for that individual. The introduction of the fit note offers doctors the opportunity to provide more useful fitness advice to patients with mental health conditions, but there remains a significant challenge to ensure that health care service professionals support rather than work against the grain of increasing and sustaining employment.
	We also know that stigma and employers’ fear play an important part in the poor employment outcomes of those with mental health disorders. Half of employers say that they would not employ someone with a mental health condition, although I strongly suspect that a large majority of them in fact already do so. Too often, sickness absence as a result of a mental health problem leads to dismissal under capability procedures or to early exit or early retirement. The introduction of fees for employment tribunals under this Government makes it harder for an individual who has been forced out of work to gain redress, which I guess could make it more likely that employers will put people under pressure to leave a job.
	As has been said this afternoon, we need the workplace environment to be much more effective in supporting people with mental health disorders. A few days ago, I met representatives from my own union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and they highlighted some of the difficulties that their members were facing at work. They talked about the stressors that people face at work, including unrealistic performance targets, zero-hours contracts and the insecurity associated with them, low pay and the difficulty of balancing family and working life.
	Those problems are not confined to one particular industry sector. Workers in the public sector—teachers, probation officers, police officers and people in the armed forces, for example—also experience high levels of pressure and stress. We should also note that those pressures cut across all levels of jobs, from the most senior to those in basic and entry-level jobs. In fact, stress is particularly high among lower-paid workers who do not enjoy autonomy and control over how their working day is spent, or who feel that they have low status at work. Stress levels among low-paid and more junior workers can be particularly high.
	There are lots of opportunities for us to intervene to improve workplace support. We have heard some helpful and imaginative suggestions and examples this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will comment on the role of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to this agenda. There is a real opportunity for managers to work with trade union workplace representatives to address some of the issues. There is also an important role for the public sector, as an exemplar employer, to adopt appropriate strategies to support staff as well as proactively recruiting those with a history of mental ill health, as was rightly suggested by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).
	Sir Stephen O’Brien, who is chair of the Barts Health NHS Trust, was recently commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition to advise my party on a mentally healthy society. He has suggested that accreditation schemes could do more. In addition, we need to pay attention to manager training and to providing information in the workplace to enable people to self-refer to mental health services, as well as to the positive use of the fit for work scheme, which is something the USDAW
	representatives told me that people were quite fearful of. The scheme could be helpful in supporting people to get back into work quickly, and I hope that employer bodies will take positive steps to engage with and reassure their workers about the way in which they are using the new scheme.
	The Government also have an important role in supporting into employment those who are out of work as a result of a mental health problem. Despite the raft of initiatives and pilots described in the Government’s disability and employment strategy, the number of people being placed in the employment and support allowance support group is rising, and labour market programmes that ought to be getting more people back into work are continuing to let them down. The Work programme has been a failure for those with a mental health condition, as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, getting just 6.7% of them back into work. The black-box approach and the national contracting regime have shut out specialist provision, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and others. We have also seen a 20% reduction in the number of specialist disability employment advisers in jobcentres. As the Minister acknowledged in a written ministerial statement on 18 December, the Access to Work programme last year suffered from significant delivery problems, which will have inhibited access to some of the support that could have been provided through the mental health component of the programme. That could have enabled more people, more quickly, to have functioned better at work.
	There is a problem with the Work programme’s absence of a specialist programme for people who have been placed on ESA for mental health and indeed other chronic health conditions and disabilities, which means they are not getting the tailor-made support they need. That is why Labour has said that we would introduce a specialist programme of work support for those who have been on ESA for more than three months, which would mean that by commissioning that support locally, we will be able to make much better use of the kind of specialist organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that have expertise in mental health and employment, and will be able to offer appropriate support.
	I agree with the comments made about the opportunity presented by the individual placement and support programmes run from a number of NHS trusts. I had the privilege of visiting the IPS team in south Manchester a few months ago, where I heard about the successes it achieves, both in placing people into, and sustaining them in, work, and in reducing the incidence of hospitalisation. We know, including from an international study—the equalise study—that such interventions can be cost-effective compared with other vocational support for some people, yet too often people are being referred to this kind of support too late. I will be interested to hear the Minister update us on the Government’s thinking on IPS and what the current learning is. I would also be interested if he commented on what I was told in south Manchester, which was that the NHS is funding these IPS programmes but if Work programme providers have referred or introduced someone to that IPS service, the Work programme provider claims the outcome payment.
	It seems mad that the Department for Work and Pensions is paying a Work programme provider when all the work is being done and all the cost is being borne in the NHS. I hope the Minister might be able to say something about that.

Kevan Jones: That is exactly what is happening to the charity I mentioned in my contribution. It is doing all the work and the Work programme provider is doing nothing for individuals, apart from making a phone call at the end to ascertain whether that person has actually got a job and then claiming the money from the Government.

Kate Green: That is absolutely not how those contracts should be working. If subcontracting to specialist organisations is taking place from the Work programme, the organisations to which those subcontracts are being let should be being properly rewarded. We face a number of problems in this area. First, a lot of local organisations do not have the opportunity or the wherewithal to participate in these programmes at all. As my hon. Friend says, those that can or try to participate find that the programmes are utterly economically unviable for them because they are not paid for the work they do.
	Finally, I wish to pick up on the discussion introduced by a number of colleagues about the operation of the benefits system, and how that bears on those with mental health conditions and their chances for employment. The hon. Member for Windsor was absolutely right to talk about the complexity and forbidding nature of some of the system. I hope the Minister is not going to tell me that universal credit is going to resolve all that, because I do not think it will. In particular, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the gateway into the system is as much a part of the problem as the way in which the benefits system is designed. Although it is right that moving people into employment is in many cases going to be good for their mental health, moving them into poorly paid jobs which leave them still struggling to make ends meet will not make them feel that their well-being is being holistically addressed. Poorly paid, poor-quality jobs are, in the long run, just not going to be consistent with good mental health. I also say to the Minister—and he will know this—that there has been a massive upsurge in sanctioning benefit claimants under this Government, which must mean that a number of those who are being caught are those with mental health problems.
	Of course there must be conditions for benefits and sanctions for wilful non-compliance, but inappropriate sanctioning causes not only financial hardship for many but huge anxiety and stress. Despite repeated protestations from Ministers that there are no targets for sanctions in Jobcentre Plus, we hear again and again anecdotal reports that such targets—at least at managerial level—do exist. It is also true that the new regime is now much more punitive. Sanctions bite harder and last longer and a culture has grown up in which claimants are being sanctioned inappropriately.
	Just a couple of weeks ago, I was told of a case in the west midlands of a Work programme participant who was unable, because of his mental health condition, to discuss his situation in a public forum, as was required by his provider. The resulting anxiety left him unable to engage at all with the Work programme and he was sanctioned for 14 days.
	It would be useful to know what analysis Ministers are undertaking of the people affected by sanctions who have a mental health condition. It is really quite shocking that we have so little information on their fate when a sanction has been imposed. I want to be clear that, under a Labour Government, there will be no targets for sanctions, that we will insist that assessors and decision makers at every stage of the process from the work capability assessment to the imposition of conditions to decisions about sanctions properly take account of the mental health of the claimant, and that expert advice will be available to ensure that relevant information is considered, with penalties on assessors for poor advice.
	May I also highlight the concerns that arise from the recent regulations to allow data-sharing in relation to universal credit recipients with a range of other service providers, including housing associations, credit unions and debt advice agencies? Constituents have said that they are concerned that this could lead to data-haring about their mental health, which they have not authorised and do not want to happen. The Minister must be clear about what protections will exist when the new regulations take effect.
	In conclusion, I am glad that we have had this debate this afternoon and that we have shared our aspirations for the best employment chances and rights at work for those who suffer mental illness. As we all know, warm words will not be enough. There must be a rigorous focus on access, support and measurable outcomes. One in four of us will suffer mental illness at some point in our lifetime. We cannot afford the waste of potential when, so often, worklessness is the result.

Mark Harper: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—but like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne I will call him my hon. Friend for the purpose of this debate—for securing it.
	I am afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will try your patience by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on his OBE, which he collected this morning. I can see from your furrowed brow that you were not aware of that, but you are now. He has been congratulated rather a lot today, but I felt that it would have been remiss of me not to do so from the Dispatch Box.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. One can never be congratulated too much, and it is right that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution should be acknowledged.

Mark Harper: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were also able to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend and embarrass him still further.
	It has been a very good debate. It is an important matter for our constituents because mental health conditions are very common, with one in six people being affected at some time in their life. That statistic has been mentioned a few times, including by my hon. Friend the Member
	for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) who put on record his contribution on the subject early in his parliamentary career. All Members made the clear link between mental health—whether good or bad—and someone’s employment position. Many Members also highlighted the fact that labour market outcomes are poorer for people with mental health conditions than for the population as a whole and those with health conditions in general. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and others said, the vast majority of people with mental health conditions want to work.
	I listened carefully to the statistics that my right hon. Friend quoted about people with severe mental health problems. In the spirit of trying to cheer him up a little, noting that he referred to some positive data from the Time to Change campaign about the changing views of employers on mental health, let me reassure him that although I am not in any way complacent, as the gap between those with a mental health problem working and those generally working is significant and far too wide, there was at least some improvement between the last quarter of 2013 and the last quarter of 2014, when the employment rate for those with a variety of common mental illnesses went up by 2.6%, with a further 70,000 people in employment. That is obviously positive and a step in the right direction. I will not overclaim for it, as it is just a step, but perhaps it shows that the good work of the organisations involved with the Time to Change campaign means that employers are open both to keeping people who develop a mental health problem in work and to employing people with mental health problems. We might be seeing the start of improvement in those employment figures, but I do not want to claim more than that.
	We are doing a lot, but clearly there is also more to do. I want to pick up on a couple of points mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I absolutely agree with her comment early on in her remarks referring to employers who say that they would not employ someone with a mental health problem. She was absolutely right that if they employ a reasonable number of employees they almost certainly do, although they might not know that they do. Perhaps the employee does not know that they have a mental health problem either.
	The statistics suggest that anyone who employs more than six people is likely to have at least one member of staff with a mental health problem. Perhaps they ought to look around their workplace, think about the people they employ who have a mental health problem and think about how well they support that person, not out of any sense of altruism, although it is of course the right thing to do, but, as the hon. Member for North Durham said, because it is the right thing to do for the business. The person will be more productive, will stay working for that business for longer and will be beneficial. That was a point well made.
	Looking at the cast of characters in the Chamber, I recall clearly that three years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the hon. Member for North Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who was then the Health Minister, participated in a debate in which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman spoke about their own personal experiences. They were both nervous during the debate about how their comments would be taken outside this
	place. I followed it quite closely, and it was heartening to see that their remarks were taken positively, not just by the organisations that one would expect—those that are familiar with these issues—but more widely and, interestingly, among members of the public. They kicked off an interesting process and since then a number of other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about their own experiences both inside and outside the House. It is right that more Members are encouraged to do that.
	The hon. Member for North Durham put it very well when he said that the more we talk about these issues, the more we are open about them, the more the House debates about them and the more we talk about mental health issues in the same matter- of-fact way—I mean that in the most positive sense—as we do about physical health issues, without making a huge drama about them, the more employees and employers will be encouraged to have those sensible conversations in the workplace.
	Members spoke about a number of support mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) mentioned the improving access to psychological therapies programme and the shadow Minister referred to the various talking therapies that are available. Those programmes have a proven record of delivering and were started by the Labour party when it was in government. They have been continued by us and expanded. By next month, they will have been expanded so that 15% of people who could benefit will have access, covering about 900,000 people a year. Next year, we will introduce for the first time access standards and waiting time standards in mental health services, and an £80 million investment will ensure that 75% of people will receive the IAPT treatment within six weeks, and more than 50% of people who are experiencing their first episode of psychosis will receive a treatment within two weeks. There is more to do, but I think that that is significant progress.
	The hon. Member for North Durham talked about the work capability assessment and the performance of Atos in delivering that. With just a teeny bit of partisanship, I will remind him that it was his party’s Government who introduced the work capability assessment and appointed Atos as the contractor. We inherited that arrangement and spent quite a long time putting it right. I detected in what he said that he is not the biggest fan of Atos, so he will be pleased to know that it is exiting the contract to deliver that service in Great Britain. In fact, Maximus takes over next week, and ahead of that, in the next few days, Members will receive a communication from that company. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that one of the areas that Maximus takes very seriously and has itself highlighted, and where it is keen to improve WCA performance, is mental health. I hope that he will engage with Maximus, using his local expertise and his personal experience, to help to improve that performance.

Kevan Jones: I am glad to see the back of Atos, but the fact is that for the past God knows how many years, the key issue raised has been the people doing the assessments. I have no problem with people with mental illness going through an assessment, but people with no mental health experience whatsoever have been responsible
	for concluding whether those individuals are fit for work. I just hope that the new provider employs people with mental health backgrounds to do those assessments, because that would be a huge step forward. It would be better for the Government and, more important, better for the individuals affected.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. One of the things that Maximus plans to do is to increase the number of people it employs who are mental health specialists. I think it was the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is no longer in his place, who said that the people who undertake work capability assessments are not qualified, but that of course is not correct: they are all properly accredited health care professionals, although it is true that not all are mental health care professionals. Among other things, Maximus proposes to increase the number of mental health specialists it has, as well as the number of health care professionals with knowledge of specific health conditions, including but not only mental health conditions; and to ensure that it has across its organisation mental function champions to discuss mental health cases with other health care professionals, to bring that expertise to bear.

Kevan Jones: That is a welcome move, but may I make a little suggestion? If Maximus is going to employ people with mental health backgrounds to conduct assessments, will the Minister ensure that anyone going for an assessment who has a clear mental health condition—it is why they are on employment and support allowance, for example—is assessed only by someone who has that expertise? That will save a lot of time and money for Government and will help the individual.

Mark Harper: It may not be that clear. Often, people going for an assessment do not have just a single health condition. It is important to remember that the assessment is not a medical diagnosis; it is about the impact of somebody’s health condition or disability on their ability to work. The assessor is not carrying out a diagnosis of a mental health problem; the assessment is about the impact of the condition on an individual’s ability to work.
	The hon. Gentleman should look at the communication he gets from Maximus. I am sure that the company will be delighted—I mean that genuinely—to hear from him about his constituents’ experience, because it is genuinely committed to improving the performance of the work capability assessment. Of course, Maximus has experience in delivering health care assessments through other contracts around the world. The signs are positive for how the company will engage with the contract.

James Morris: My hon. Friend makes an important point about individuals not having a single health condition, whether that is mental or physical. One of the challenges is the assessment of someone who has a fluctuating mental health condition, which might require a special form of assessment.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point about fluctuating conditions in the context of assessments. One change in the work capability assessment has been a recognition that fluctuating conditions, including in the mental health space, must be taken into account. Claimants should be asked questions not just about
	their experience on that day, but about what a typical day looks like and the extent to which their condition fluctuates.
	A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam who opened the debate, referred to how my Department and the Department of Health are working together on improving people’s employment and health prospects. He referred to the pilots that we are undertaking. There are four broad pilots, one looking at the individual placement and support model, one looking at whether peer-led group work employment intervention can improve outcomes, another investigating whether a telephone support model is effective, and an online service pilot, which was one of the recommendations from the RAND study that he mentioned. Those pilots, as he knows, have started and are moving into the next phase, which involves a larger set of pilots.
	One thing that we are keen to do, which is frustrating because it means that pilots take longer, is to get robust evidence bases for those pilots. As the shadow Minister said, if one wants to roll them out on a significant scale, with my Department and the Department of Health working together, and a substantial amount of money is to be invested, a good evidence base is needed to be clear about what the outcomes will be. It is important that there are sufficient numbers of individuals going through those pilots for a robust evidence base to be developed, rather than lots of qualitative data and anecdotal evidence suggesting that they were successful.

Paul Burstow: I agree that we need a robust evidence base on which the roll-out takes place, but individual placement and support has already been the subject of randomised controlled trials. There is a very good evidence base that should be used to roll it out.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. That is why the access to psychological therapies work is already under way and, as I said, is being rolled out further. One of the issues is how well the pilots can be scaled, given that some pilots require skilled mental health professionals, of whom there are a limited number—by which I do not mean a small number, but finite capacity—looking at models which enable us to scale the pilots up more quickly. We want to make sure that we have a good evidence base for pilots that look promising.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to some very specific experiences in Northern Ireland. It is worth putting on the record—he knows this because we have had this conversation before—that quite a lot of welfare and health services are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is right for him to raise his constituency experience here in the House, but the delivery of those services is not under my control or that of my colleagues in the Department of Health. Those services are under the control of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will be meeting the Minister in due course as we are keen for our experiences to inform how the Northern Ireland Executive rolls out those services, and vice versa. If we can learn from each other, we are happy to do so.

Jim Shannon: We understand that that is the situation. In my contribution I referred to the Prince’s Trust and some of its good work with vulnerable young people,
	which the shadow Minister also referred to. Is there any intention to roll out such work on the UK mainland to give vulnerable young people the help that they need at the coalface of their lives?

Mark Harper: I do not have a specific answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman immediately, but I will take that point away and look at it further. I listened carefully when he was setting it out for the House and there were some positive aspects to that approach.
	About a third of NHS mental health trusts in England are using individual placement and support. The Department of Health is grant funding the Centre for Mental Health to extend IPS further, and my Department and the Department of Health are working with the Centre for Mental Health to try IPS with schizophrenia. From his expression, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam appears to be familiar with that programme. One of the aims is to encourage at a local level my Department and Jobcentre Plus to work closely with the health service, and there are examples of such close working.
	The fit for work service was referred to by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who said that the longer people were out of work, the less chance there was of return. The fit for work service, to which the shadow Minister also referred, which is obviously at a relatively early stage, is about helping employers and employees manage the sickness absence programme.
	I was tempted to advertise another service that we offer earlier, but I resisted. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam opened his speech with the story of Anne-Marie, I thought that it was a good example of where she and her employer would have benefited from the mental health support service, which is part of access to work, which is clearly not as well known as it ought to be. As he said, it has a job retention rate of around 92%. It assesses an individual’s need to identify strategies that they can use to cope with their mental health problem, looks at a personalised support plan, either for returning to or remaining in work, and gives employers advice. That is important, particularly for small employers that do not have the capacity to have occupational health support in place.
	As it happens, tomorrow I will be speaking at a disability confident mental health focus event, which is being supported by Mind, Remploy and the Business Disability Forum, and hosted by Royal Mail, specifically to raise awareness about the mental health support service. A significant number of employers are coming, and I have named several employers, including Royal Mail, who are committed to this.
	Leadership has been referred to, and I attended an event with a KPMG senior partner—I hope it is in order to mention the company given that I used to work for it, although it was a long time ago—who has been open about his own mental health problem. It was heartening that he referred to the fact that the senior management of that organisation had created an environment in the business where, as a senior member of the management team, he felt comfortable with being open about his mental health problem. I know from talking to other members of staff that the fact that he has been able to do that and has been well supported by that employer has had a powerful effect on encouraging
	others in that environment to be open about their mental health problems. So there are other employers who recognise that. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) is not in his place, but he referred to a disability confident event that he has run. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is also interested in this area, and I hosted a disability confident event in my own constituency a couple of weeks ago. I have written to all right hon. and hon. Members to encourage them to do the same in their constituencies, partly to engage with those small and medium-sized employers that might otherwise be unfamiliar with the campaign.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam wrote an article for PoliticsHome today entitled, “I don’t like Mondays—how work can affect mental health”. My only criticism of the piece is that he urged UK plc to take action. I know what he meant, but it is worth remembering that we are also talking about UK Ltd, because half the work force is employed by small and medium-sized enterprises, and they do not always have the human resources support or access to services that larger businesses have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to BT. The head of occupational health and well-being there, Dr Paul Litchfield, has produced two independent reports for the Government. I waited until he had concluded that work, and therefore had only one hat on, before visiting BT, where I had a very positive experience. The hon. Member for North Durham spoke very positively about its programme. He is right that BT puts a lot of effort into supporting employees with mental health problems, and not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is absolutely in its business interest. It has a very high staff retention rate. It keeps almost everybody who develops a mental health problem at work, and the vast majority in their existing roles, although sometimes they have to change role. I heard four individuals give powerful testimonials about the support they had received from the company. I thought that it was incredibly positive that they felt so open in discussing some quite difficult issues they had had in front of their management chain. They clearly work in a very positive environment.
	I will mention universal credit before drawing my remarks to a conclusion, because the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston would think it remiss of me not to do so. I do not pretend that universal credit solves every problem on the planet, but I think that there are two areas where it is very positive for mental health. The first is the way that it has been set up, because it is about getting work coaches to engage with people earlier, looking at what support they need. If someone falls out of work and approaches the jobcentre—I think this is the thrust of the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham—we want the support to be delivered earlier in the process, rather than later. Universal credit has been set up in such a way that it is about having that conversation, looking at what someone can do and delivering support earlier, which I think will help. It is not the only solution, but I think that it will make things better.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the Minister, but will he also address the point I made about companies being
	paid by the Government to support individuals into work, even though that work is actually being done by the voluntary and community sector? If those companies are claiming to have helped those people and are getting paid for it, even though the work was actually done by the voluntary and community sector, that is a very serious issue.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my remarks, because I had not yet got to that point. There are two points that arise from what he said, and he was supported in that by the shadow Minister. The first relates to the ability of smaller private sector companies and the voluntary sector to be subcontractors to prime providers, and we will consider how to make that easier as we look to develop what follows the Work programme. The second point—the central one—is about ensuring that Work programme providers are paid only when they have done the work. He raised a specific concern about a third sector organisation in his constituency. If he can give me a little more detail, I will look into it. If a Work programme provider has done nothing at all, it should not pretend that it has done so in order to claim a payment. Either it should not be paid, or it should effectively be subcontracting with the smaller provider. If the smaller provider is very successful, clearly we would want it in the programme, working with the prime provider. If he gives me some more details, I will absolutely task officials with looking into it. It is not very sensible for the taxpayer to be paying someone for work they have not done. Moreover, we should be making sure that the money goes to support those who are successful at getting people back into work so that they can improve their organisations and become more successful and sustainable.

Kate Green: Will the Minister also comment on, or ask his officials to look into, the report I received from the individual placements and support service in south Manchester that Work programme providers were being rewarded for work that was being carried out and funded by the NHS? It sounded as though the public purse was paying twice and the Work programme provider was getting a reward for very little, if any, activity.

Mark Harper: Yes. I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and I will look into that specific example as well.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the Work programme. It is true that in its earlier phase the success rates for those on ESA as opposed to JSA were not very impressive—one in 24, I think. However, more recent cohorts have been more successful, and about one in 10 people have been getting into sustainable work. Obviously we want that performance to continue.
	It is very apposite, Mr Speaker, that you are in the Chair as I draw my remarks to a close, because I know—I do not think it is a secret—that you take a close personal interest in this area. I remember when you allowed a discussion on mental health to run for a fairly reasonable length of time in the last session of DWP questions. You feel that it is a very important area. You referred to the changes we had made in law to reduce the stigma for the many Members of Parliament who might have a mental health problem. Earlier I referred to the hon. Member for North Durham and
	my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who spoke very openly in the House about their experiences.
	The Government take this issue very seriously. There is a lot of working across Departments, not just with my Department and the Department for Health, but with the Home Office, where, as Members will be aware, the Home Secretary has been pressing a great deal to make sure that police cells are not seen as places of safety for those who develop a critical mental health problem. Work is being done by other Ministers across Government. We are moving in the right direction, but we are not complacent. Although some progress is being seen in the unemployment figures, there is still a considerable gap, and there is more work to do. I think there is a shared sense of purpose across the House about the direction of travel, and I want us to continue to move in that direction through to the general election and beyond.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Minister for his very full response to the speeches by the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones), for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and to those who intervened in this wide-ranging debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for her response.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne talked about work being fun and purposeful. That is an important message to get across. We need to make it clear that most people with a mental health problem do want to work, and that message has come across very clearly in the debate. That means that our benefits and back-to-work systems need to work for people with mental health problems. Some of those issues and challenges have been well described and debated. The approaches have to be tailored and personalised, and grounded in very clear evidence. I welcome what the Minister said about the promising news from the pilots so far.
	I accept the Minister’s gentle chiding about my use of the phrase, “UK plc”. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on all types of business entity, from sole traders all the way up to major corporations. However, there are still far too few businesses taking a lead in this area. We have heard about BT, Royal Mail and others. Perhaps the whole of the FTSE 100 should step up and give a lead, and those companies should do what they need to be doing to give good mental health to their employees.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor talked about happiness and said that we should measure it. The Government are measuring well-being as part of the work of the Office for National Statistics. In the CentreForum work I have been doing, we struggled about what we would call the report, as often happens. We called it, “The pursuit of happiness”, because the focus on well-being is absolutely key, and we made a recommendation about the importance of the kitemark to those who are striving to be mental health-friendly employers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne talked about how critical the first 1,001 days are to shaping a
	person’s life, making them more resilient and capable of dealing with adversity, and making it less likely that their mental health will be at risk. That life-course approach is absolutely key to this Government’s strategy and I think it will endure whoever is in government after the general election.
	Not only has this House debated mental health probably more often in this Parliament than during any previous Parliament; it has done so in a positive and constructive way. It has not treated it as something to fear and dread; it has cast a much more positive perspective on it, and that is due to those hon. Members who have talked about their own lived experience and those of us who have a policy interest in it and are determined to see change. I hope that the next Parliament will not just continue talking about the issue—which it really must—but go on to make sure that we step up the pace of change, because there is so much we can do for those who suffer from mental health problems. It will be good for the country if we do that, and it will be good for them, too.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered mental health and unemployment.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10 and 11 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
	That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 17) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the draft Civil Proceedings and Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Authorised Persons) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

EXPLORATION AND APPRAISAL DRILLING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Mary Glindon: I am really pleased that the Minister who will respond to this evening’s debate is my former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I hope it will be a good debate.
	This debate could not be more timely, as only today Oil & Gas UK published its 2015 activity survey, which has, quite rightly, attracted much news coverage throughout the day, not only because of the ongoing crisis with the price of oil, but because, as the chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, Malcolm Webb, has said:
	“This offshore oil and gas industry is a major national asset.”
	Although the report contains some bad news about the fortunes of the oil and gas industry, it also identifies the potential of the UK continental shelf, which, according to the recent Wood report, has produced 41 billion barrels of oil equivalent, and it is estimated that a further 12 to 24 billion could be produced.
	The report highlights a number of important statistics, notably that 1.42 million barrels of oil equivalent per day were produced in 2014, which represents the best year-on-year performance in 15 years. However, production revenues fell to just over £24 billion for the year—the lowest since 1998—and there was a negative cash flow of £5.3 billion, which was the worst position since the 1970s.
	It is expected that production could be about 1.43 million barrels of oil equivalent per day this year, and up to 15 new fields could come into production. By 2019, more than half of the UK continental shelf production is likely to come from fields that have started production since 2012.
	The survey states that the long-term outlook for the UKCS is bleak, with drilling activity collapsing and prospects for significant new developments fading. Exploration activity was significantly worse than expected in 2014, with only 14 of the expected 25 wells drilled, which reflects the downward trend since 2009. An inability to access capital was cited as the main reason for low exploration activity, leading to the discovery of just 50 million barrels of oil equivalent with the potential to be commercially developed.
	As few as between eight and 13 exploration wells are forecast to be drilled in 2015, as the lower oil price adds to existing barriers. Eighteen appraisal wells were drilled, which is more than were forecast, but that is a significant fall from the 29 wells drilled in 2013. No more than five appraisal wells are forecast for this year, a fall driven by poor exploration results over the past four years.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady is outlining the case for help for the industry. We all know that the good news this year has been the lower price at the pumps, meaning that we all—my constituents—benefit, including from the fact that that has driven down the price of oil for home heating. There have been real benefits from the reduction in the oil price. I know the
	hon. Lady accepts and acknowledges that prices have come down, and therefore that inflation has fallen and people have more money in their pockets. Is she suggesting to the Government that we are looking for tax incentives for the oil companies so that they can proceed?

Mary Glindon: That is exactly what I hope for from the Government, and I will come on to that.
	Six more development wells were drilled than in the previous year. In relation to reserves, the survey states that there are potentially 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent, with 6.3 billion in sanctioned projects or under development and 3.7 billion yet to get boardroom go-ahead. However, companies say that fewer than 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent are likely to be developed, and that figure could fall further because of current global capital rationing. Under the right conditions, the industry would need to invest £94 billion to recover those reserves.
	The fact is that our reserves and untapped resources could provide a successful industry for years to come, but the industry faces exceptional challenges and an uncertain future. There must be a concerted effort on tax, regulation and cost to make the basin more attractive to investors and to ensure that significant sums of much needed capital come to the UK.
	The best year-on-year performance was largely due to new investment in new start-ups enabled by tax allowances. Tax concessions are generally the most effective and meaningful incentives. There needs to be a permanent reduction in the headline rate of tax for the industry, a simplification of the tax allowance structure and stimulus for exploration.
	I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Chancellor, in his forthcoming Budget, will significantly reduce the headline rate of tax for the industry, which is currently between 60% and 80%. The Oil and Gas Authority must be rapidly resourced with the right capability and capacity to implement swiftly the recommendations of the Wood report. Enhanced capability and the authority of a better resourced regulator would greatly improve the stewardship of our oil and gas resources on the UK continental shelf, and cut through many of the existing blockages to maximising its economic recovery.
	The Treasury is going through a public consultation regarding a proposed investment allowance for North sea gas and oil developments. The allowance should be modified to include provisions to support exploration and appraisal drilling along similar lines to the Norwegian approach. A decade ago Norway was faced with a slowdown in exploration and investment, but it has solved the problem by giving a massive rebate to those exploring in Norwegian waters. It is only through exploration that we find new discoveries.
	It would be helpful if receipt of the investment allowance was subject to an undertaking by operating oil companies that full and fair opportunity on a level playing field will be given to the UK supply chain to tender for related contracts. The North sea can indirectly be a significant stimulant to jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector and deprived areas of the UK such as the north-east. Over the past five years the majority of North sea fabrication contracts have been placed overseas. The Government can do a lot more to support the British fabrication industry without breaching EU or World Trade Organisation regulations. Our domestic fabrication
	industry has the skills, expertise and track record to fulfil most of the contracts that have, sadly, been placed elsewhere.
	Oil and Gas UK has recently highlighted that development costs for new offshore facilities over the past four years have risen to unsustainable levels. Budgets have been exceeded and projects have suffered major delays. In most cases the projects under review were constructed outside the UK. Recent contracts awarded by Maersk to overseas fabricators for the forthcoming development of the Culzean field—I apologise for my pronunciation—have been widely reported. However, very few UK jobs will be created by the development of this field, even though Maersk will benefit from significant UK tax concessions. At best, UK fabricators will be second-tier contractors. UK fabricators, including OGN in my constituency are facing a bleak future, along with the rest of the industry, with a limited number of contracts on the horizon. Unless those fabricators win a reasonable proportion of the projects, there will be significant job losses, likely yard closures, and the extinction of domestic manufacturing skills that will never be restored.
	It is vital that we maintain pressure on oil companies to place work in the UK. That pressure can be maintained by ensuring that the work of the Department of Energy and Climate Change industry development team is fully transferred and incorporated in the Oil and Gas Authority. For my part, I will press to have the work of the cross-party industry promotion group carried forward into the next Government. That group, of which I am a member, has proved to be very successful. It will be meeting three major operators this week to discuss their projects and what opportunities those will bring to the UK supply chain. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister that she is listening to the oil and gas industry, and that action taken by the Government will mean that jobs are protected and our major national asset is there for many years to come.

Amber Rudd: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on securing this debate. We know each other from our shared time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I was particularly grateful when she came to Hastings with a group of us and sampled some of the fantastic fish in my constituency. I am now aware of her long-standing commitment to the oil and gas sector, and I am delighted to discuss that with her today.
	There is no doubt that oil and gas will remain central to the UK’s energy mix as we make the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Investing in domestic oil and gas production is essential. It helps to reduce our reliance on energy imports and provides a significant input to our economy. The Government’s policies therefore aim to maximise the economic recovery of our resources.
	This debate is timely given the current challenges that lower oil prices bring to those companies operating in the North sea, and all those who work in the sector. The UK industry is widely acknowledged for overcoming some of the toughest operating conditions anywhere in the world, and renowned for spearheading revolutionary technological solutions in offshore exploration and
	production. It is due to this determination and creativity that we have seen about 42 billion barrels of oil and gas produced so far, and there could be up to 20 billion barrels still to be produced. Getting at these, however, has its challenges.
	We have a mature province. Therefore, most of the hydrocarbons that are easier to get at have already been exploited. We have ageing infrastructure, most of which is in place much longer than was originally envisaged. It requires careful stewardship and the necessary maintenance and investment to keep it functioning effectively. We have different types of technological challenges, including deepwater fields, high pressure-high temperature fields and existing brownfields, whose full potential we need to realise. We also need to ensure that, when fields do come to the end of their economic life, they can be decommissioned economically and with minimum impact to the environment. Of course, there is the challenge of maintaining the competitiveness of the UK continental shelf and the UK industry, including the supply chain.
	The Government are absolutely committed to the long-term future of the sector, which supports 375,000 jobs across the UK, contributes £3 billion a year to Government revenue and still supplies half the oil and gas we consume. We recognise that the sustained fall in oil price presents real challenges for the sector. Operators are having to implement substantial savings to maintain financial viability. Of course, job losses like those we have heard about in the past few weeks are a real concern and will have an impact across the UK.
	The north-east of England, where the hon. Lady’s constituency is located, has significant expertise across the spectrum of offshore engineering and manufacturing. It supports many thousands of quality jobs, providing families with a good standard of living and contributing to the local economy. I would particularly cite the offshore fabrication capability, which has been rebuilt in the region after a decade of decline. This capability once more supports 2,000 jobs on the Tyne. Continued investments and new projects are therefore vital. Any further cutbacks on exploration, which is the lifeblood of the basin’s future prosperity, are a real concern. We are therefore committed to working in partnership with industry, the work force and other stakeholders to provide all the support we can. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise recently engaged with key players in Aberdeen, and plans to visit other key oil and gas hubs, including the north-east of England, very soon.
	Industry must address rising operating costs and reverse recent declines in operating efficiency. The work force, whose dedication to working in the North sea’s challenging environment I much admire, must work with industry to avoid any industrial action, the timing of which could compromise the future success of North sea operations. For their part, the Government must continue to pursue their efforts in finding solutions that preserve jobs and maximise economic recovery. We have already taken action.
	In 2013, we commissioned Sir Ian Wood, a leading oil industry expert, to examine how we could maximise the North sea’s full potential. In his response, published a year ago, Sir Ian recommended a need for a tripartite partnership between the Treasury, industry and a new purpose-built regulator. The Government have moved fast to implement this. We are setting up the regulator in
	the form of the Oil and Gas Authority under the expert stewardship of Andy Samuel. He is working to ensure that it will be up and running come April. Dr Samuel has been asked to accelerate work with the industry to identify the key risks to UK oil and gas production and to establish what further measures might be taken to mitigate them. He will be sharing his conclusions with us at the end of this month.
	At last month’s meeting with industry in London, the Government heard industry’s concerns about falling oil prices. Since then, senior officials have participated at both the Aberdeen oil and gas emergency summit and the oil and gas jobs taskforce to ensure that we fully understand the breadth of issues. Furthermore, we continue to ensure that we have a tax regime that encourages investment while providing a fair return to the taxpayer. A number of positive initiatives, such as brownfield allowances and new field allowances, have been introduced, and, most recently, from the start of this year, the Chancellor reduced the rate of the supplementary charge on oil and gas production profits by 2%. With the
	Budget approaching, he has also signalled that the Treasury is looking at what more can be done to support investment in the North sea, and the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will have to wait for the details from him.
	The hon. Lady referred to the results published today on reduced activity. As she rightly said, it was stated that the inability to access capital was one of the leading factors. This reinforces our commitment to supporting the industry, which is undoubtedly facing particularly testing times not just in the UK but globally. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work closely with the industry to ensure that it can ride out these choppy waters and emerge stronger on the other side. We will continue to support new exploration and investment, encouraging a collaborative approach to protect jobs and to realise the full potential of the UK’s oil and gas resources.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.